Some interesting statistics comparing the unemployed now, and in 1982, when the U.S. jobless rate last rose above 10%:
Another Milestone We'd Just as Soon Skip: U.S. Unemployment Rate Hits 10.2%
As I was preparing this blog for its official introduction to the world this morning, the news reports began pouring in that the nation's unemployment rate has passed that dreaded, yet anticipated, double-digit figure: the closely watched unemployment metric surged to 10.2% in October, the highest it's been in 26 years, the Labor Department reported this morning.
The unexpected sharp increase, from 9.8% in September, came as companies slashed 190,000 more jobs last month. "That was larger than the 175,000 job losses that most forecasters were expecting for the month, and it underscored just how dire the labor market remains despite the recent upturn in the nation's economic output," the Chicago Tribune's "Swamp" reported.
________________________________
If workers too discouraged to seek work and those who want to work full-time, but have been forced to accept part-time jobs are included, the nation's unemployment and underemployment rate in October was actually 17.5%.
________________________________
________________________________
Although unemployment had increased steadily, the double-digit figure is expected to have a major psychological impact and could create potentially significant political consequences.
In apparent anticipation of the grim number, President Obama is expected this morning to sign a bill passed earlier this week by Congress that will extend jobless benefits to the long-term unemployed and expand tax-relief programs for homebuyers and businesses operating at a loss.
The last time the jobless rate crossed double digits was during the recession and initial recovery period of the early 1980s. Unemployment hit 10.1 percent in September 1982, rising to a high of 10.8 percent. It remained at or above 10% until June the following year, the Tribune reported. "This time around, unemployment has risen even faster and, by some analysts' reckoning, could hover around 10 percent for much longer," the newspaper's blog reported.
The jobless rate at the start of 2009 was 7.6%. Since then, the number of unemployed workers has increased by 8.2 million, to 15.7 million as of October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
If those numbers aren't depressing enough, the "unofficial" labor situation is actually worse because the government doesn't count as "officially unemployed" the so-called discouraged workers, those who have given up looking for jobs. That figure in October was 808,000, a 40% increase over the 484,000 Americans who were too discouraged to continue to look for a job in October of last year.
And to add even more joy to your Friday, an additional 9.3 million people report that they are underemployed because their hours either have been cut or they can't find full-time work. "If this group, and discouraged workers are included, along with others on the fringe of the labor market, the nation's unemployment and underemployment rate in October was 17.5%," the Tribune reported.
Jobs are slashed, stock market soars - WHY?
Newman notes that since cratering in March, the stock market has jumped some 60%, one of the most dramatic rallies in history. He adds, however, that as the market has risen, so has the unemployment rate.
_________________________________________
"The same workers who have been getting laid off, improving the [bottom line for many companies, are also consumers running out of money to spend. Some are going bankrupt, defaulting on bank loans, and losing their homes. That's a major risk to corporateprofits — and stock prices — down the road."
— USN&WR's Rick Newman
_________________________________________
So, why are the two not inverse? Stocks have surged because companies are reporting stronger earnings than the market anticipated. But earnings have increased NOT because companies are doing more business; they're improving because companies have cut costs more than revenues have declined. And for most companies, costs equate to jobs.
With stock options and bonuses that often exceed their seven- or eight-digit salaries, CEOs and other executives rarely face the same economic realities as the rest of us. But the one thing they and we both understand is that you can't slash your way to prosperity. Cut as the may, executives know they ultimately must generate new business and new revenue to improve their companies' financial performance.
And on that measure, the outlook is just as worrisome for the stock market as it is for the job market, Newman concluded. "Most American companies still rely on American consumers to keep business humming. Sooner or later, the U.S. job and stock markets need to go in the same direction," he wrote.
27 U.S States Now Have Jobess Rates of 8.5% or Higher
More than half of the United States now has jobless rates of 8.5% or higher. Think about it: if you live in one of the following states, at least one out of every 11 people you encounter is involuntarily unemployed. (Included on the list, of course, is my home state of Nevada.) And that doesn't take into account the millions of additional workers who have been forced to part-time work, which means they've probably also lost their medical insurance as well:
Legislation passed by the Senate yesterday - and which is expected to easily pass the House of Representatives and be signed into law by President Obama - would extend unemployment insurance benefits another 14 weeks for all unemployed Americans who have exhausted their coverage, and provide an additional seven weeks of payments for residents of the states above, along with those living in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
P.S. President Obama did indeed sign the legislation into law on Nov. 6, extending unemployment insurance coverage for millions of Americans.
Legislation passed by the Senate yesterday - and which is expected to easily pass the House of Representatives and be signed into law by President Obama - would extend unemployment insurance benefits another 14 weeks for all unemployed Americans who have exhausted their coverage, and provide an additional seven weeks of payments for residents of the states above, along with those living in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
P.S. President Obama did indeed sign the legislation into law on Nov. 6, extending unemployment insurance coverage for millions of Americans.
The Double-Whammy: Uninsured and Unemployed
Because mine and my family's health insurance was at one time provided through my then-employer (as is the case with two-thirds of all Americans), we lost our health insurance the same day I lost my job. (Don't get me started about the injustice of cutting off an employee's health insurance at 5 PM the same day you boot them out the company's door.)
Unlike many Americans, my family was lucky. My husband had managed to convert his contract position into a traditional job days before I got the axe. Because he was in the process of enrolling in the organization's insurance plan, he was able to have our daughter and I immediately covered by his plan. Had that not been the case, we would have faced premiums of $2,000 A MONTH to retain our previous coverage.
___________________________
"People who receive a pink slip experience a double whammy. They not only lose their jobs, but they usually lose their health coverage as
"People who receive a pink slip experience a double whammy. They not only lose their jobs, but they usually lose their health coverage as
well. That's why health reform is so important."
- Ron Pollack, Families USA executive director
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
The bottom line? If companies can continue to behave so badly, eliminating workers' access to affordable health care with the flick of a termination letter, they must be required to join with the government to finance a public health care option for those they so thoughtlessly discard.
Your Company and Layoffs - A Winning Combination!!!
Are your company’s profits not growing as fast as they used to? Are shareholders getting upset? Well, why not consider layoffs?
This handy, easy-to-follow tutorial, courtesy of YouTube answers burning questions such as:
This handy, easy-to-follow tutorial, courtesy of YouTube answers burning questions such as:
- Are layoffs ethical?
- "Corporat-ese," confusing euphemisms and other obfuscations that increase the comfort of executives delivering the bad news, all they while enabling them to actually not tell employees anything.
- What to do about messy situations, like the employee scheduled for life-saving open-heart surgery next month, but who has now lost his health insurance because the company laid him off?
- FREE outplacement advice often offered to soon-to-be-ex-employees.
- When should companies give laid-off employees more than 5 minutes to clean out their offices?
- And what about those company staplers?
In the "Isn't-That-Sort-Of-Obvious?" category: Getting Hired, Never a Picnic, is Increasingly a Trial, the NYT reports
The trend of employers putting potential employees through a battery of interviews has intensified in the tough economic climate, The New York Times reports in today's edition in a story that talks about job seekers enduring five, six or seven interviews.
"But even if there are substantive reasons for companies to take so long to decide, many job hunters ask why so many employers interview them once, twice or more — and then never get back in touch. And for that question, no one had a good answer."
Alas, I don't have much insight into what leads to this behavior on the part of prospective employees, but for insight into what it feels like to be on the receiving end of this - and worse - behavior, please check out an article I wrote for the Chicago Tribune's business section.
Even during times of lower unemployment, things aren't always better, as The Wall Street Journal's Joann Lublin reported in this article, in which she quoted me and other mistreated job seekers who demanded "equal time" in the newspaper's pages after an article she wrote about misbehaving job candidates.
Being "THE MAN" has its benefits, but being healthier isn't necessarily one of them
Inadvertently "Stickin' It to the Man"? At many companies, executive-level employees enjoy a special health plan that covers 100% of their health care expenses. This can include all co-pays, Lasik surgery, every aspect of Junior's braces, physician-prescribed stays at fat farms and travel and accommodations to see out-of-town medical specialists. This same privilege isn't normally extended to rank-and-file employees, who pay standard co-pays and at least some percentage of the total cost of their health care.
But working stiffs can take heart: THE MAN in the corner office may appear tan, rested and ready to lop the heads of another 10% of the company's workforce, but new research by the University of Toronto shows that he is more likely to be plagued by psychological and physical problems that can offset any health benefits that you would assume result from that "highly compensated" job and its matching Lamborghini health plan.The study, which involved 1,800 American workers from a variety of occupations and industries, found that those in positions of authority report:
Significantly higher levels of interpersonal conflict with others;
Are more likely to experience conflicts between work and family life; and
Are at increased risk for psychological distress, anger and poor health.
People with "job authority" were defined as those who direct or manage the work of others, or can hire or fire other employees.
The study's findings go to the heart of a seeming paradox in research about job stress: although people in higher status positions enjoy benefits that should translate to better health, they're usually not much healthier than workers without the perks.
"Unfortunately, there are also downsides to job authority that undermine or offset the upsides of having power at work," said the study's lead author, University of Toronto Sociology Professor Scott Schieman. "In most cases, the health costs negate the benefits."
(Not that it's all that relevant to this post, but if you want a laugh and insight into the image at the top of this post, check out the classic Sprint commercial from early 2001, "Dawn of a New Era," when blogs were as new and revolutionary as Twitter was last year.)
Study finds worrying about job security may be more damaging than losing a job
Recently released findings of a longitudinal study that asked the same group of workers about their job security fears between 1986 and 1989, and then again between 1995 and 2005, has found that employees' fears of losing their jobs have grown dramatically. But perhaps a more significant and surprising finding: constantly worrying about unemployment may be more damaging to a worker's health than actually losing a job. "In fact, chronic job insecurity was a stronger predictor of poor health than either smoking or hypertension in one of the groups we studied," said University of Michigan sociologist Sarah Burgard, with the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research and co-author of the study.
"It may seem surprising that chronic high job-insecurity is more strongly linked with health declines than actual job loss or unemployment," Burgard said. "But there are a number of reasons why this is the case. Ongoing ambiguity about the future, inability to take action unless the feared event actually happens, and the lack of institutionalized supports associated with perceived insecurity are among them."
Given all that's at stake, these feelings are predictable, she added. "When you consider that not only income, but ... many important benefits that give Americans piece of mind - including health insurance and retirement benefits - are [often] tied to employment, it's understandable that persistent job insecurity is so stressful," Burgard said.
Organizations need to learn more about workplace conditions, activities or behaviors that cause these problems, and then intervene to decrease employees' perceptions of insecurity, she recommended.
"Certainly job insecurity is nothing new, but the numbers [of people] experiencing persistent job insecurity could be considerably higher during this global recession, so these findings could apply much more broadly today than they did even a few years ago," Burgard added.
The NYT pontificates on how good candidates can clear the HR hurdle
The New York Times today offers so-so advice on how to get around the HR gatekeeper and get to the hiring manager when seeking a job for which you're not PERFECTLY qualified.
Most relevant passage:
If your only relationship with the company is electronic, via a job board or a posting, your chances are not good. H.R. people confronting hundreds of faceless online applications have one main goal: to weed out as many people as they can.
“The employer is not expected to be creative or flexible or see the opportunity in you that you think you might have” when the relationship is purely electronic, said Bernadette Kenny, chief career officer at Adecco North America, the staffing firm. She considers that to be an “unrealistic expectation on the part of the job seeker.”
But if you can establish personal contact with someone on the inside, you may be able to make your case. It’s tiresome to have to repeat this, and a lot of people don’t like to hear it, but it comes down to networking. Job seekers who don’t fit all the requirements “need to go around the gatekeeper; they need to find another door,” said Barbara Safani, owner of Career Solvers, a career management firm in New York. If you are introduced to a hiring manager by someone you know, there is more trust, and suddenly “things aren’t as important as they appeared to be on that job spec,” she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)