It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The CEO of Boeing succinctly summarized a recent study by Northwestern University's Center for Labor Market Studies regarding unemployment rates for different income brackets:
The Center analyzed the labor conditions faced by income-grouped U.S. households during the fourth quarter of 2009.
In the face of one of the worst economic environments in memory, those in the highest income groups had nearly full employment levels, with just a 3.2 percent unemployment rate for households with over $150,000 in income and a 4 percent rate in the next-highest income group of $100,000-plus.
The two lowest-income groups -- under $12,500 and under $20,000 annually -- faced unemployment rates of 30.8 percent and 19.1 percent, respectively.
The study - published in February - notes that the poor are suffering Depression levels of unemployment:
Workers in the lowest income decile faced a Great Depression type unemployment rate of nearly 31% while those in the second lowest income decile had an unemployment rate slightly below 20% (Table 3 and Chart 2). Unemployment rates fell steadily and steeply across the ten income deciles. Workers in the top two deciles of the income distribution faced unemployment rates of only 4.0 and 3.2 percent respectively, the equivalent of full employment. The relative size of the gap in unemployment rates between workers in the bottom and top income deciles was close to ten to one. Clearly, these two groups of workers occupy radically different types of labor markets in the U.S.
Arianna Huffington, commenting on the study, pointed out that it if were the high-earners suffering 31 percent unemployment, the media would be discussing unemployment non-stop. But because it is the poor who are suffering Depression-level unemployment, they largely ignore it.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported Friday that America’s unemployment rate is the highest since 1983, but while most of the job losses have been in the private sector, public sector jobs – including jobs in government, education and health services – continued to increase.
Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time (in pay and hiring) during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.
Originally posted by Carseller4
If you are accustomed to making over $150,000 a year, what are the chances you even file for unemployment in the first place?
The truth is that over the past couple of decades, the "rules of the game" have been tilted even more in favor of the rich. Centralization and globalization have been two keys trend which have contributed to this.
The report shows that:
•Income inequality is worse than it has been since at least 1917
•"The top 1 percent incomes captured half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007"
•"In the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth."
As others have pointed out, the average wage of Americans, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1970s. The minimum wage, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1950s
If we break the data down further we will find that 93 percent of all financial wealth is controlled by the top 10 percent of the country. That is why these people are cheering their one cent share increase while layoffs keep on improving the bottom line. But what bottom line are we talking about here? The Wall Street crowd would like you to believe that all is now good that the stock market has rallied 60+ percent. Of course they are happy because they control most of this wealth
Originally posted by hardamber
I'm not so sure my comment belongs here. I adopted my daughter when she was seven from a family that has a background of alcoholism, unemployment and slack morals. She has one aunt who has had five children by five different men. Each of her children has been taken away from her in the hospital. They are some of the dumbest and morst worthless people I personally know. We have raised our daughter in a high income home with every kind of help available to her. I have devoted myself to taking care of her and she is melting down on me. We have put all the money she will need for college in an account for her and guess what? She could care less. She was talking to a kid about becoming a prostitute. She says she was joking, but given the other problems we are having with her, I'm not so sure. She has no direction in life. She said she does not deserve to have a good man. If she thinks something is good, she runs from it and looks for the worst she can get. Instead of aiming for the bullzeye, she is happy to just get a dart on the board.
My point is, some people are destined to be in the lower class because they lack something inside to pull themselves up. I know we are living in a nasty economic downturn, but people need to try and rise above their circumstance through good character and hard work. I feel very bad for the people who still have it rough and are doing all the right things. Students need to care more about their future than their face book, cell phones and ipods. Our culture has just about ruined the next generation.
Originally posted by ararisq
I believe about 3%. I know several people that were laid off and they did not file for unemployment and probably wouldn't until things got bad. The vast majority of these people are not the type to be laid off. They are more likely to be fired for reasons which would exclude them from filing.
It's a myth that it's generally illegal in the USA for employers to truthfully say that they fired employees. Many states have laws that protect employers from liability in defamation lawsuits, for disclosing truthful information about job performance and reasons for termination. Subsequently, chances are good that your former employer can "legally" say that you were fired from your job. Your former employer might even be permitted to honestly say why you were fired from your job. On the other hand, many employers take the safe route anyway, by refusing to answer questions about whether or not they fired the employees in question and why. However, background investigators know that employers might be concerned about liability, despite laws that protect them for speaking candidly about fired employees. So, background investigators have clever ways of asking questions that make employers feel more at ease. For example, instead of asking "Why did this person leave your company?", they might ask "If given the opportunity, would you rehire this person?" A simple "No!" limits liability, while indicating to the investigative minds that you were fired from your job or at minimum, burned a bridge when you quit.
Originally posted by TheCoffinman
reply to post by GreenBicMan
every man woman and child owe $41,000. debt slaves, debt shackles... ive already been to college im in debt because of college... guess what, im unemployed, i cant pay my debt, other than being a piece of meat in the army, ive never held a decent liveable wage job. i had a car once, the bank repossesed it and have since tacked on 10k to the 12k i owed on it, so now i owe 22k aint that nice... ive had one job offer in the last year... from burger king. its your reality that is twisted...