The jobs story is worse than it looks

The FED today lowered growth and upped unemployment and inflation forcasts for the second time this year. GDP growth went from 3.65 in January to 3.2 in April to today's 2.8, and by the end of the year they'll likely revise it down some more.

We have a President who has no clue how to fix our economy. The folks that voted him in are getting hit the hardest. And things are only going to get worse...

The job story is worse than it looks.

I know college graduates who didn't apply for unemployment benefits because they weren't willing to take any job (like flipping burgers) which is required if you apply for unemployment benefits.

I know highly-paid executives 55 and over who were given "voluntary" retirement packages which meant if you didn't take the offer, you could be terminated with no notice and no benefits. Many of these executives became unemployed, but weren't officially unemployed because they too weren't willing to apply for unemployment benefits due to not being willing to flip burgers. They were also required by the company to sign a two-year non-compete agreement which meant they couldn't work in their areas of expertise for two years. Eff that.

So the unemployment figures are a joke because they don't include highly-trained college graduates and executives who were forced to sign a non-compete agreements and are not willing to flip burgers.

Yes, the job story is worse than it looks.

But Obama keeps praising his job creation skills.

But Obama keeps praising his job creation skills.

He loves those McDonalds hamburger flipper jobs that he is replacing manufacturing jobs with.

Unemployment is funded by employers paying for their employees, you earn it by working and accruing benefits - up to 50% of your former pay. Of course recent grads can't get unemployment benefits - they haven't earned any!

And they don't force you to take a job flipping burgers if you file a claim if that is not what you are trained to do.

You really need a paycheck, you will flip burgers. Or clean toilets. Noone is "too good" for any job and it doesn't kill you to get your hands dirty - the sooner the princesses and princes realize that, the better our country will be.

Unemployment is funded by employers paying for their employees, you earn it by working and accruing benefits - up to 50% of your former pay. Of course recent grads can't get unemployment benefits - they haven't earned any!

And they don't force you to take a job flipping burgers if you file a claim if that is not what you are trained to do.

You really need a paycheck, you will flip burgers. Or clean toilets. Noone is "too good" for any job and it doesn't kill you to get your hands dirty - the sooner the princesses and princes realize that, the better our country will be.

I agree that if you are hungry you will do what you have to do. But unemployment "insurance" is way in the red and the states owe the feds billions on the programs. So someone is not paying what they owe apparently. And I see no cause to brag about an increase in jobs that primarily consists of hamburger flippers. Ever tried to raise a family on that pay?

It's in the red because once again we did not plan for a rainy day, let alone a downpour. They were underfunded and once again small businesses will bear the brunt of correcting those mistakes.

I'm not saying that the job market is not bleak for recent grads, or that "burger flipping" jobs are the kind we need - I'm just tired of the whining.

But you really can do much worse than a burger flipping job if you're desperate - at McDonald's that means you get medical, paid vacation, free or discounted food, uniforms provided, and get rapidly promoted. Stock options, life insurance, and 401K as you advance too.

Entry level burger flipping won't provide as the sole means of support for a large family, but why should it? Not working is a luxury and 2 income households are the norm.

Unemployment is funded by employers paying for their employees, you earn it by working and accruing benefits - up to 50% of your former pay. Of course recent grads can't get unemployment benefits - they haven't earned any!

And they don't force you to take a job flipping burgers if you file a claim if that is not what you are trained to do.

You really need a paycheck, you will flip burgers. Or clean toilets. Noone is "too good" for any job and it doesn't kill you to get your hands dirty - the sooner the princesses and princes realize that, the better our country will be.

Please document your responses.

When we researched unemployment benefits for our daughter when she graduated last year, we were told that she had to accept any job. She started her own business which has become very lucrative.

A large corporation in our town offered "voluntary" retirement packages for executives 55 and older. None of these executives that we know even applied for unemployment benefits because of the reason above. Do you really think that someone who makes a half-million a year and is 55 or over and has been forced to sign a non-compete can get a job or get benefits up to 50% of their former pay? I think not.

Oh, yeah, the answer is that these 55-yo executives should have planned for retirement. Well, they planned for retirement -- but at 65 at which time their kids' college expenses would be paid for, their mortgages and car payments would have been paid off, etc.

Yes, if you are offered a job while on unemployment you do have to take it.

But it's not like they show up at your door and drag you off to flip burgers. You send in resumes and interview for jobs IN YOUR FIELD and then if you are offered one, you do have to accept it or stop getting benefits.

Are you talking about unemployment benefits or other assistance programs? Most recent graduates are not eligible for unemployment due to lack of prior employment.

Other assistance programs may in fact require that if any job is available you have to take it - beggers can't be choosers.

Sorry, but someone in their late 50s who has been making 500K a year and is retiring early with benefits while their spouse still has a job is not my biggest concern.

The households where kids are hungry, they have no insurance, and they are losing their homes rank quite a bit higher.

See comments in caps below.

Yes, if you are offered a job while on unemployment you do have to take it.

But it's not like they show up at your door and drag you off to flip burgers. You send in resumes and interview for jobs IN YOUR FIELD and then if you are offered one, you do have to accept it or stop getting benefits.

Are you talking about unemployment benefits or other assistance programs? Most recent graduates are not eligible for unemployment due to lack of prior employment. OUR DAUGHTER WORKED AT IN RETAIL WHILE AT GEORGIA TECH. MAYBE WE GOT BAD ADVICE AT THE UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE.

Other assistance programs may in fact require that if any job is available you have to take it - beggers can't be choosers.

Sorry, but someone in their late 50s who has been making 500K a year and is retiring early with benefits while their spouse still has a job is not my biggest concern. THE BENEFITS WERE HEALTH INSURANCE AND ONE YEAR'S SALARY, YET THEY ARE OUT OF THE JOB MARKET FOR TWO YEARS DUE TO NON-COMPETE. THESE GUYS' WIVES DON'T WORK OUTSIDE THE HOME EXCEPT FOR VOLUNTEER WORK. YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT STILL IF YOU HAVE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS THAT YOU HAD PLANNED TO TAKE CARE OF BY 65 AND YOU ARE 55 WITH NO INCOME, YOU STILL HAVE THOSE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS. CAN'T SELL A HOUSE IN THIS MARKET (NO SALES IN OUR TOWN FOR HOUSES OVER $100,000 IN TWO YEARS). DON'T YOU BUY INTO THE AMERICAN DREAM? THAT IF YOU GET A GOOD EDUCATION (EVEN IF IT MEANS BEING ON FOOD STAMPS) AND WORK HARD TO BE SUCCESSFUL, YOU WILL LIVE OUT YOUR DREAM? SURELY YOU CAN RELATE TO THIS -- YOU KNOW WHEN YOU ARE 20 AND CAN'T IMAGINE BEING 30? SAME FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE 55 WHO ARE THINKING ABOUT BEING 65. ACTUALLY IT'S WORSE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE 55 BECAUSE 10 YEARS AS A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR LIFE (18%) GOES BY MUCH MORE QUICKLY THAN FOR SOMEONE WHO IS 20 (50%). IT'S HARD TO GRASP THAT AT YOUR AGE.


The households where kids are hungry, they have no insurance, and they are losing their homs rank quite a bit higher. I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT CAN YOU SEE MY POINTS?

If she had worked retail and claimed benefits from it, then she would have to accept a similar job/pay scale. You aren't allowed to be too good for the same job you had before and keep getting paid benefits.

I'm not saying it doesn't suck, just that it is a pretty normal way for things to go in corporate America.

Your husband is getting health insurance and is being paid $500K to not officially* work in his field for 2 years. 99.99% of the world would gladly trade places with him and do not think of this as a horrible tragedy that negates the American dream. Most of Sowal would do it for 1/10th that pay and the health insurance.

*corporate America also knows how to circumvent this by following the letter of the law, not the spirit. A "hiring bonus" or something similar and not officially starting work until the non-compete expires are also quite normal.

If she had worked retail and claimed benefits from it, then she would have to accept a similar job/pay scale. You aren't allowed to be too good for the same job you had before and keep getting paid benefits.

I'm not saying it doesn't suck, just that it is a pretty normal way for things to go in corporate America.

Your husband is getting health insurance and is being paid $500K to not officially* work in his field for 2 years. 99.99% of the world would gladly trade places with him and do not think of this as a horrible tragedy that negates the American dream. Most of Sowal would do it for 1/10th that pay and the health insurance.

*corporate America also knows how to circumvent this by following the letter of the law, not the spirit. A "hiring bonus" or something similar and not officially starting work until the non-compete expires are also quite normal.

I am talking about friends of ours, not my husband who is very successfully employed.

I know that several of our friends have taken jobs that supposedly circumvented the non-compete clause. The corporation's New York City lawyers have gone after them with a vengeance. Our friends can't afford to pay lawyers who can compete with these high-end lawyers.

It stinks. But no matter how bad someone has it, many people have it much worse. But does that mean that one can't have empathy for them all? Pepper had a seizure on Monday. Someone's dog probably died on Monday? But can't you have empathy for the owners of the dog with seizures?

Sorry, I misread.

Yes, but obviously I feel much worse for the person whose dog has died than the one who is complaining that their caviar & filet mignon dog food is being discontinued.