The November unemployment data that came out on Friday has Democrats crowing about the drop in the unemployment rate; yet Republicans are rightly pointing out that much of the drop was due to labor-force withdrawal. Neither party, however, seems to be noticing the most remarkable thing: the continuing, constant and historically high share of unemployment accounted for by the long-term unemployed, around 43 percent. This is bad for society for two reasons:
1. The burden of unemployment—the loss in utility—must increase the longer one is unemployed (and has perhaps exhausted savings and unemployment benefits).
2. With unemployment concentrated so narrowly, fewer people than otherwise experience the pain, so the political pressure to do anything to ameliorate the situation is lessened.
The huge rise in long-term unemployment, and the huge rise in the share of income accruing to the top 1 percent of households, both work to dis-integrate American society.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
If people would learn a new economy and start their own business we could put an end to this failing economy.
Is it unreasonable to ask people to contribute to the economy in some way in exchange for extended unemployment benefits?
The definition of contribution can be very broad. One’s contribution could be job training or education. I would even be willing to consider someone raising a child to be their contribution.
However, if you are skipping class or miss that patent teacher conference you are failing to live up to your part of the bargain.
Joshua says “Unemployment is at fairly acceptable among people with actual skills. You just have a rough economy causing businesses to shed those with a very bad productivity:price ratio.”
In 2004 I was a highly skilled software architect but my job was offshored to India. Was not able to find similar employment so took a base level job as a contract programmer. Then took another job as a quality evaluator. Was laid off in 2008 as the recession took hold.
It’s now been more than 4 years since I’ve been employed at a profession I took 20 years to develop skills in. While my skills are still deep and useful, they aren’t bright and shiny as someone who uses them every day. Frankly, HR departments look at people like myself as damaged and unemployable.
Please don’t tell me about needing to try harder to find a job. I apply every week for jobs I am more than qualified for and I get NO response, not even a rejection. No one can keep it up in the face of having become a non-person.
Mine is not the only profession this has happened in.
Unemployment statistics may be going down. Based on what *I* see around me, the biggest contribution is not people leaving the work force, although that is happening.
I think the biggest contribution to the decline may be that, once your unemployment benefit runs out there is no (visible) mechanism for tracking those who are still looking for work.
To Paul and others who IMO tracked too far down the over-specialized path, take a step back and stretch for those more readily hireable skills, like simple website building, SEO, those high value, less techie, more personal skills that hiring people can and will readily see.
I work much on back end components so I understand your pain. Our work is hard to grasp, but we have to work. When I was looking to change employment, I built 3 sites front-to-back, something I don’t do in my daily job. It was refreshing. It was recognized by hiring folks. And it made me appreciate more the massive contributions of others in our community. Hosting has become inexpensive and there are so many off-the-shelf components that we used to have to write ourselves or accept poor implementations. I highly encourage you to take this challenge.
If this method doesn’t suit you, what is the alternative? It sure isn’t to seek an architect position, with the economy in its current state,a large number of developers are out there for the hiring or off-shoring, so employers aren’t looking to eek out per developer efficiency. So find an alternative, not a rationalization for your lack of job. Create a job, if need be.
The most effective way to show that you are a problem solver is to solve this employment problem. You can and will do it. And the economy will be all the better.
What part of the 43% of the long term unemployed is made up of the “unemployable,” and is the number of the “unemployable” changing? By unemployable, I mean that part of the the long term unemployed who by circumstances, pathology, or chance, don’t possess even the most basic skills required for the simplest job. I’m talking about just the ability to show up with some predictability, pass a drug/alcohol test, and have the minimum interpersonal skills required to follow simple instructions. Does this number also include those who by temperament, attitude, circumstances, or choice have no interest in ever being employed and is this number changing.
Did you know, the labor department claims that some half a million jobs were created last month –
http://statspotting.com/2011/12/500000-jobs-were-created-in-the-u-s-in-november/
I hear they are hiring transient crop workers in Alabama
I think that the trouble with unemployment data reaches far greater than just not giving extra weight to those who have been unemployed for a long period of time. The way that I see it, the “unemployment rate” as we see it now, is essentially a made-up, massaged metric that really only has a place in a class room, as it is abused in the realm of politics and news.
It starts innocently enough: the people who aren’t employed divided by the population. But then, you have to take out people who aren’t old enough to work, and those that are retired, that seems innocent enough. But then you also take out those still in college or developing their skills but of a working age… I guess that’s alright then still, it kind of makes sense. But then you start losing me when you take out the sick, the disabled, and the generally unemployable. And then you jump the shark when you tell me that you throw out the people who have been discouraged from the crappy economy, and give up looking for work completely. Come on, you’re just insulting my intelligence now. How are you going to base unemployment solely on people who are employable, and actively seeking work? Did it ever occur to anybody that the people who are discouraged and quit their job search is one of the main things that we should be measuring?
Please, in the future, give me a stat that tells me the % of people who aren’t working from ages 18-65 who aren’t in college. No further massaging.