The Worst of the Pain

[kelvin070]

They are sweeping the real problems under the carpet. Dissecting the unemployment rate will reveal its worse than the depression years.

There is a great tendency in this country to refuse to see what is right in front of everybody’s eyes.
The highest group, with household incomes of $150,000 or more, had an unemployment rate during that quarter of 3.2 percent. The next highest, with incomes of $100,000 to 149,999, had an unemployment rate of 4 percent.
Contrast those figures with the unemployment rate of the lowest group, which had annual household incomes of $12,499 or less. The unemployment rate of that group during the fourth quarter of last year was a staggering 30.8 percent. That’s more than five points higher than the overall jobless rate at the height of the Depression.

Op-Ed Columnist - The Worst of the Pain - NYTimes.com

Bob Herbert's column in yesterday's New York Times pointed out that the unemployment crisis is not hitting all parts of the income spectrum equally. I was pretty stunned by the numbers, which go like this:

Read more: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/02/10/rich-people-still-have-jobs-poor-people-dont/#ixzz0fBsFMnxw

 

[Burntblood]

People don't want to see what's right in front of their eyes.
That puts too much of the onus on them. We believe what we want to and cross our fingers that'll all work out.
It won't.

 

[Accountable]

They are sweeping the real problems under the carpet. Dissecting the unemployment rate will reveal its worse than the depression years.

Op-Ed Columnist - The Worst of the Pain - NYTimes.com

I don't give a damn and don't care two hoots abt your culture.

:humm:

 

[kelvin070]

:humm:

That has nothing to do with culture. Its current affairs and its a wealth of knowledge for me. Pursuit of knowledge is a never ending process.

 

[dt3]

The unemployment rate of households earning $12,499 or less is 30%.

Know what's ridiculous about that statement?

It means 70% of households earning $12,499 or less have jobs.

Now, we all know that people working in part-time jobs don't count towards unemployment statistics. Which means that these households must have full-time jobs.

There are 2,080 hours in a year for a 40 hour/week job.

$12,499/2,080=$6.00 per hour

$6.00 per hour is below the federal minimum wage, which means there probably isn't very many households with full-time jobs that can earn below $12,499 per year.

Is anybody following my logic here? I think this is bullshit.

 

[ClicheGuevara]

Worse then the Great Depression? I kinda doubt that. .I don't see thousands upon thousands of Okies migrating to California to work for pennies a day picking fruit. Our jobless rate may be higher, but the Great Depression was far worse and had a few more factors playing into it. .A stock market crash, A drought in the midwest and NO government security net like we have now. We are not living off of chicken grease and flour. .At least I'm not, and I'm pretty low on the financial totem pole.

 

[Accountable]

The unemployment rate of households earning $12,499 or less is 30%.

Know what's ridiculous about that statement?

It means 70% of households earning $12,499 or less have jobs.

Now, we all know that people working in part-time jobs don't count towards unemployment statistics. Which means that these households must have full-time jobs.

There are 2,080 hours in a year for a 40 hour/week job.

$12,499/2,080=$6.00 per hour

$6.00 per hour is below the federal minimum wage, which means there probably isn't very many households with full-time jobs that can earn below $12,499 per year.

Is anybody following my logic here? I think this is bullshit.

Yup that makes sense. I thought you were going to point out that, well, they're unemployed. Where's the 12 grand coming from?

 

[Accountable]

Worse then the Great Depression? I kinda doubt that. .I don't see thousands upon thousands of Okies migrating to California to work for pennies a day picking fruit. Our jobless rate may be higher, but the Great Depression was far worse and had a few more factors playing into it. .A stock market crash, A drought in the midwest and NO government security net like we have now. We are not living off of chicken grease and flour. .At least I'm not, and I'm pretty low on the financial totem pole.

I like chicken grease and flour. That's gravy! :licklips:

 

[kelvin070]

The unemployment rate of households earning $12,499 or less is 30%.

Know what's ridiculous about that statement?

It means 70% of households earning $12,499 or less have jobs.

Now, we all know that people working in part-time jobs don't count towards unemployment statistics. Which means that these households must have full-time jobs.

There are 2,080 hours in a year for a 40 hour/week job.

$12,499/2,080=$6.00 per hour

$6.00 per hour is below the federal minimum wage, which means there probably isn't very many households with full-time jobs that can earn below $12,499 per year.

Is anybody following my logic here? I think this is bullshit.

Forget abt the bullshit. The point here is the unemployment rate is not hitting the income sprctrum equally. Lets combine the three lowest income groups and take the average rate of unemployment.

Rannge of Income Unemployment Rate
$12,160 or less 30.8%
$12,160-$20,725 19.1%
$20,725-$28,680 15.3%

The average unemployment rate is a whopping 22%. So whats the conclusion? The rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer

 

[Accountable]

Forget about the bullshit?? You can't use flawed studies to support a point. Find a valid study.

Even better, find one single study in history where employment/unemployment was evenly distributed.

BTW, your conclusion doesn't follow from your "evidence." It's a leap.

 

[kelvin070]

Forget about the bullshit?? You can't use flawed studies to support a point. Find a valid study.

Even better, find one single study in history where employment/unemployment was evenly distributed.

BTW, your conclusion doesn't follow from your "evidence." It's a leap.

Its not totally flawed as the title of the article says that the rich still have jobs and the poor dont.

 

[hart]

I don't need a study to tell me that when times are tough, the have nots are going to suffer more than the haves. Sh*t does roll downward...........

 

[nova]

The only reason that umemployment "dipped" over last month was the census dept hired 1 million+ people temporarily to conduct the census. I guarantee once thats over we'll see a spike again....

 

[Minor Axis]

Kelvin, of course the conservatives in the forum are going to poo poo you, that's what they do when it comes to social issues especially those social issues concerning the peeps at the bottom of the earnings scale. They get what they deserve.

 

[kelvin070]

Kelvin, of course the conservatives in the forum are going to poo poo you, that's what they do when it comes to social issues especially those social issues concerning the peeps at the bottom of the earnings scale. They get what they deserve.

Agreed, as my quote points out: There is a great tendency in this country to refuse to see what is right in front of everybody’s eyes.

 

[Accountable]

Its not totally flawed as the title of the article says that the rich still have jobs and the poor dont.

Translation: "Its [sic] not totally flawed as the title of the article says what I believe, and the title is all the proof I need."

eta: If what you claim is true, you should be able to easily find a better study.

 

[KpAtch3s]

While I agree with dt3, this article has at least one flaw, but why does this articles point seem to be a surprise? Of course unemployment is going to be higher at lower earnings; I bet it was the same way during the Great Depression.

Consider the type of employee or person that is earning 150,000 a year, they are generally very well educated, very successful and talented at what they do. That person will not have an issue holding on to his job because his talents are not easily replaceable or combined into job titles.

Now consider the person at the lowest income bracket. This person is usually part time, minimum wage, with a low education level in a position that requires no specialized skills. These people can be easily replaced when their business revenue will allow for it.

Look at this example. People are not at the same spending level as they were before the bust. The real estate market has fallen apart and as a consequence construction has slowed. Obviously with fewer construction projects being undertaken a contractor will not require as many construction workers as he did during the boom. A building project will still require an architect, a project manager, and a foreman. There are fewer of these types of job roles as there are for your normal construction crew. This means when you lose say just one building project, you are losing only project manager, a few supervisors, and perhaps a couple of foreman; but, you are losing maybe 30 construction workers or more?

The fact that there is a higher unemployment rate at the lowest income level than there is at the highest income level should be of no surprise to anybody.

 

[Accountable]

Exactly my point. Kelvin's just looking for an excuse to twist his knickers again.

 

[ClicheGuevara]

I like chicken grease and flour. That's gravy! :licklips:

Holy Crap! You're right! Bring on the depression!

 

[kelvin070]

The unemployment rate of households earning $12,499 or less is 30%.

Know what's ridiculous about that statement?

It means 70% of households earning $12,499 or less have jobs.

Now, we all know that people working in part-time jobs don't count towards unemployment statistics. Which means that these households must have full-time jobs.

There are 2,080 hours in a year for a 40 hour/week job.

$12,499/2,080=$6.00 per hour

$6.00 per hour is below the federal minimum wage, which means there probably isn't very many households with full-time jobs that can earn below $12,499 per year.

Is anybody following my logic here? I think this is bullshit.

While I agree with dt3, this article has at least one flaw, but why does this articles point seem to be a surprise? Of course unemployment is going to be higher at lower earnings; I bet it was the same way during the Great Depression.

Consider the type of employee or person that is earning 150,000 a year, they are generally very well educated, very successful and talented at what they do. That person will not have an issue holding on to his job because his talents are not easily replaceable or combined into job titles.

Now consider the person at the lowest income bracket. This person is usually part time, minimum wage, with a low education level in a position that requires no specialized skills. These people can be easily replaced when their business revenue will allow for it.

Look at this example. People are not at the same spending level as they were before the bust. The real estate market has fallen apart and as a consequence construction has slowed. Obviously with fewer construction projects being undertaken a contractor will not require as many construction workers as he did during the boom. A building project will still require an architect, a project manager, and a foreman. There are fewer of these types of job roles as there are for your normal construction crew. This means when you lose say just one building project, you are losing only project manager, a few supervisors, and perhaps a couple of foreman; but, you are losing maybe 30 construction workers or more?

The fact that there is a higher unemployment rate at the lowest income level than there is at the highest income level should be of no surprise to anybody.

Exactly my point. Kelvin's just looking for an excuse to twist his knickers again.

The study was conducted by staff at Northeastern University's Centre for Labor Market Studies. If you want to challenge their figures you have to do a study and come up with your figures
I suggest dt3 send your above calculations to them and seek clarification.

The data, which are for the fourth quarter, come from a new study (PDF) by Andrew Sum, Ishwar Khatiwada and Sheila Palma at Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies. The researchers conclude that "what has been missing from the public debate over the labor market crisis is an honest and detailed analysis of which American workers have been most adversely affected by the deep deterioration in labor markets."

Read more: People in lower income brackets are seeing higher rates of unemployment - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

This is the surprise:

Contrast those figures with the unemployment rate of the lowest group, which had annual household incomes of $12,499 or less. The unemployment rate of that group during the fourth quarter of last year was a staggering 30.8 percent. That’s more than five points higher than the overall jobless rate at the height of the Depression.