Talk About a Revolution

We’ve all been transfixed by the protests in the Middle East. Much has been said about the role social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter played in getting the crowds together for the demonstrations.

But why are they protesting? From what I’ve read, the young people in Egypt, Yemen and Libya want the same things a lot of their counterparts in the U.S. want: A job and the chance for a better life.

According to one Op-Ed piece I read recently, the unemployment rate for youth in this country is 48.9%. That means half of the young people in this country cannot find a job.

That’s disturbing on so many levels. One, how can these young people ever buy a home, rent an apartment or even buy a car without a job? And let’s not forget that many college graduates are burdened with hefty amounts of student loan debt.

This is not a good harbinger for economic prosperity in this country.

President Obama has implored business leaders to hire more workers, but so far, those words have fallen on deaf ears. Corporate leaders respond they are too “uncertain” about the economy. I think they are waiting for an even more friendly Congress to wipe out as many taxes as they can.

It must be equally frustrating for young people to stagnate at such a young age, a time when they should be making their mark in the world, when they are surrounded by so many images of success by people barely out of puberty. Justin Bieber is a superstar at age 16! Mark Zuckerberg a billionaire before age 30! And please don’t get me started on Ke$ha.

At least when I graduated from college it was expected that it would take some time before I climbed up the ladder of my profession…and it did. Now, young people have to be at the top of their field no later than their 21st birthday. That’s a heavy burden to put on someone just out of college.

Companies often say applicants don’t have the exact skills they are looking for. Well, you could train someone who is bright and otherwise qualified. But managers are lazy and they don’t want to train incoming employees. And it’s going to take time for schools and colleges to put in the necessary curriculum to educate young people in those new skills. There is going to be a lag. In the meantime, companies must teach new hires if they want their firms to grow and prosper.

Since I’m at the other end of the spectrum—I won’t give my age but let’s say I’m between Lady Gaga and Betty White—I have to say that this employment market has not been kind to older workers either. Many have been let go because of their supposed high salaries and employers view them as out of touch with today’s technology. That’s a bit unfair. I’m certainly willing to take a cut in a pay and learn new skills, if only someone would give me the chance.

It’s also been said that one way to reduce the national deficit is to cut entitlement programs like Social Security. But neither political party seems willing to do that. There’s a reason why it’s called the third rail of politics.

One suggestion has been to push up the retirement age. I’m all for that. Health permitting, I’d love to work well beyond retirement age. Provided, of course, I have a job. Raising the retirement age will only help cut the budget deficit if companies hire workers—of all ages.

So you see, young and old are not that far apart on this issue. Maybe we should get together and march on Washington, D.C. for jobs.

Young people can push our wheelchairs and in return, we’ll co-sign your car loans. A deal?

What Happened to the Middle Class?

I read two interesting articles recently.

First the good news: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is finally investigating employers who deliberately exclude unemployed persons from hiring decisions. Here it is: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110217/ts_yblog_thelookout/help-wanted-jobless-need-not-apply

I say it’s about time the government looked into this odious and illegal practice.

Now, the not-so-good news: The middle class in the United States is falling further and further behind economically while the rich get richer. http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/. So much for the “trickle down” theory.

There are many reasons for this. First is the decline of unions. Without strong unions, workers have fewer shields against abuse by employers and wages have stagnated as a result. And how many companies offer pensions these days?

I also contend that the absence of unions is also an issue when it comes to layoffs. Unions offered a measure of protection against employers summarily dismissing workers without reason or warning. Favoritism was less of a factor. Now, corporate overlords just cut anyone they want in order to boost profits, protect their own power bases and save their handpicked lapdogs. Workers have little redress.

In this recession, very few CEOs lost their jobs. It was the middle-level workers and below who got canned. It will take years for them to recover lost wages. Not wonder so many homes have gone into foreclosure.

We can debate the usefulness of unions. Did they get too greedy? But without them, the middle class has suffered.

I'm not going on a socialist rant here. But it seems to me that the best promise of capitalism—that anyone who works hard can achieve the good life—is giving way to a rigid class structure of rich getting richer and middle class and below getting poorer. The opportunity to move up the economic ladder is dwindling.

Global competition also plays a part. Corporations now seek to send manufacturing jobs offshore at cheaper wages, thereby cutting off what was once a path to middle class prosperity for many with only a high school education.

Now, only the most highly trained and skilled can get good paying jobs in finance and technology. So it’s not enough to simply go to college, you have to go to the right college and have the right degree. And that takes a lot of money, which ensures the rich will stay that way.

This situation is sure to cause tension between the rich and the middle class. Guess who will win?

Playing Defense

With the Super Bowl over, football season is now officially behind us. Yet the unemployed are still playing defense.

Here’s what I mean: A while back I had a conversation with a friend of mine. Because of the bad weather we’ve been having in the Northeast, she was unable to travel to Canada to visit her father during Christmas week. (She’s a teacher and always has that week off.)

Stuck at home alone, she said she was going stir crazy. (Her live-in boyfriend had luckily escaped to Florida to visit his mother.)

Then she said something that got me upset: “I don’t know how you do it all the time.”

Ah, the universal misconception about unemployed people: that we sit at home and do nothing all day. She said this, even though she knows I go on interviews and do freelance assignments. I’ve even starting doing volunteer work.

Referring to that statement, I asked if she thought I was doing anything wrong.

Oh, no, she said. She was just making an observation.

Then she explained that I was probably feeling a bit defensive, or “going to a place of defensiveness” as she put it. (Yes, she’s has had a lot of therapy, which gave her the insight into my feelings.)

Likewise, my sister calls me nearly everyday, and asks (in that tone only an older sister speaks): “So, did you do anything today?” Is she trying to make me feel bad about my situation? Is she implying I’m not doing anything to improve my jobless lot in life? Like my friend, she knows I’ve been searching and doing freelance work. She even asked me once if I were looking for a job! Why would she think I wasn’t?!

Or do they mean nothing by what they are saying. Is my own guilt and embarrassment about being unemployed for more than a year making me defensive?

But should unemployed people who’ve lost their jobs through no fault of their own be defensive about their situation? Do we have to explain ourselves to anyone? Do they need to know the number of job applications we’ve submitted? How many interviews we’ve gone on? How many rejection emails have come to our email box?

I’m sure most people who inquire about my job search are not making a judgment about my situation; they only want to know what’s going on in my life. (Not much!)

Still, it’s hard not to feel a bit ashamed about not having a job for so long. Are they thinking, “Well, there must be something wrong with her if she can’t get a job”?

Considering the low regard jobless people are held in these days, it’s hard not to get, well, defensive. It’s easier to blame the victim of a layoff than the poor decisions of management that led to the layoff. We are put in a position of essentially defending an action we had no part of instigating. Hey, if you want to know why I’m out of work, ask the bosses who told me to pack up my desk and leave because the company was doing poorly. All the sales people who weren’t selling ads and were not bringing in revenue got to keep their jobs, yet we on the editorial side were kicked to the curb. Go figure.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, editorial is an expense item; therefore it’s the first to get cut. If you ask me, what the company needed were better salespeople. Alas, I had no say in the matter. Sorry for the digression into bitter territory.

So far, my tact has been to answer questions about my job status very matter-of-factly: “Well, I’m still looking for a job. I’ve been going on interviews and doing some freelance work.”

That works on many levels. It answers the question in a polite manner without getting into too much detail or emotion, and is in fact, the truth.

But am I obligated to answer what could be considered a rather intrusive question? Do I say nothing or tell them it’s none of their business? That would be a bit rude, but no more rude than the original question.

Guess I’ll just have to continue to play defense...and wait for spring training.

Money Matters

Ever since I got that email stating that I requested too high a salary, I’ve been thinking about what I should do. How much lower can I go?

Some companies demand that you submit your salary requirements. If not, you will not be considered for the job. At. All. So does that mean the company is looking for the lowest bidder, and ignoring an applicant’s experience?

When I received that rejection email stating my salary demand was too high, I did something I probably should not have done. I replied that my salary request was merely a starting point and we could have negotiated a mutually agreeable number.

I know, I know. It was stupid. But I’m getting increasingly frustrated with my search for gainful employment. I’m beginning to think it’s easier to get a kidney transplant than a job nowadays.

We job seekers have so little say in the matter; the employers hold all the cards. We rarely get the chance to respond, especially when we are rejected for a job. However, it should be pointed out that my email politely stated that I was willing to negotiate a salary. What’s wrong with that?

Therefore, I decided to once again cut my salary demands, which were originally less than what I was making when I worked full time. I also now state that my salary requirements are open to negotiation.

Yes, I can live on a lower salary, thanks to a reasonable rent and no car loan. But how much lower can I go? I’d like to move to a nicer place, but I guess that’s been put on hold indefinitely.

Statistics indicate that it takes years for a laid-off employee to regain his or her financial footing and make what he or she made before a job termination. No wonder, what with employers looking to hire the lower bidder for jobs.

And how can having more and more lower-paid workers and a disappearing middle class be good for our economy?

Chances Are

The statistic flashed on the screen during the news program for a mere second, but it has haunted me ever since: Those unemployed for more than a year (like myself) face a 9% chance of finding a job. Ever. Again.

Where did that stat come from? According to this story: http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/the-99ers-may-be-the-new-tea-party#more-66962, the Department of Labor.

Yikes! Those are pretty lousy odds of ever finding a job.

Also according to the Department of Labor, 6.4 million, or 44.3%, of the unemployed workforce have been without a job for more than 27 weeks. That’s an awful lot of people that will never work again.

Of course, I don’t know how the government came up with that figure. It’s obviously a composite of all industries. So one’s chances of finding a job may be better, or worse, depending upon the particular field or where you live. What factors, such as age and educational levels, were taken into account?

Any way you look at it, this is not good news for those of us who have been seeking a job for a year or more. It’s also not good news for our country to have so many people unemployed for so long with no hope of getting a job. That will surely strain the social safety net and communal fabric of the United States.

It also got me thinking: Do I have a better chance of something happening to me—good and bad—than getting a job again? (Yeah, I know, I have way too much time on my hands.)

That led me to this website: http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm.

It lists your odds of some pretty amazing things happening to you. Such as:

Odds of getting canonized: 20,000,000 to 1. Well, I was told I was laid off to save the company. Doesn’t that make me a saint?

Odds that a person between the age of 18 and 29 does NOT read a newspaper regularly: 3 to 1. Guess that explains why I don’t have a job.

Odds of being murdered: 18,000 to 1. At least I won’t have to read those rejection emails anymore.

Odds of getting away with murder: 2 to 1. Damn!

Odds that a celebrity marriage will last a lifetime: 3 to 1. It’s all about the prenup and publicity anyway.

Chance of dying from a shark attack: 1 in 300,000,000. Would that be the sharks that swim in the ocean or the office sharks that stabbed me in back and made sure I was laid off to save their jobs?

Chance of an American woman developing cancer in her lifetime: 1 in 3. But everyone knows you can’t get cancer if you don’t have health insurance. Right?

Chance of dying in a terrorist attack while visiting a foreign country: 1 in 650,000. Whew! Good thing I don’t have the money to travel.

Chance that Earth will experience a catastrophic collision with an asteroid in the next 100 years: 1 in 5,000. Wonder what the unemployment rate will be then.

Chance of me marrying Mark Sanchez: 14,000,000,000 to 1. Hey, a gal can dream can’t she?

Okay, I made that last one up. But check out that website. It will make you smile while trying to find a job you apparently have no chance of getting.

Generation Gap

Recently, someone commented on one of my posts. In it, I said that in many instances, I was passed over for a job in favor of someone with less experience (which is really just a way of getting someone for a cheaper salary).

The person who commented, a recent college graduate, said that the opposite was true in her search for employment: People with more experience were getting the jobs she sought.

So whose job-hunting travails are more indicative of what the climate is for job seekers today? Well, both are.

Much depends on the field you are trying to get hired in. Some businesses want someone with years of experience, which does make it difficult for college grads to get hired.

Other industries, like journalism, are having a difficult time adjusting to the new realities of plummeting advertising sales, competition from online sources and how to mine revenues from the Internet and social media. Therefore, media companies want to hire someone who has as little experience as possible so they can pay them the lowest possible salary.

Think I’m making this up? Just today I got a rejection email saying, and this is a direct quote: “The budget for the position was considerably less than you requested.”

Now, just for the record, I requested $4,000 less than I was making at my previous job. My salary request—which I was willing to negotiate—is in line with what someone with my experience would make. (Yes, I checked this on the Internet.) The ad didn’t say it was an entry-level position.

To be fair, I’ve gone on a couple of interviews where my experience was an asset, not a detriment. But it’s pretty obvious many companies are eschewing experienced candidates in favor of recent college grads or interns so they can pay them low wages.

Also, where you live has a direct impact on how easily you can be hired in a particular field. A software engineer looking for a job in Seattle probably has more jobs to choose from but also faces more competition.

Plus, companies can be very, very picky. With so many applicants vying for each open position, they can choose only those that have the EXACT qualifications they are looking for. Managers do not want to train anyone new in a job.

What more proof of how picky employers can be? Read this article from the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/unemployed-job-applicants-discrimination_n_809010.html.

It details the code words and other nefarious methods companies use to weed out not only unemployed candidates, but other “undesirable” applicants as well. Yes, we know companies can hire—and fire—anyone they choose. But some of what they are doing is flat-out illegal. This has frightening implications for anyone—employed or not—looking for a job.

Still, I can sympathize with the commentator’s experience. When I started in journalism 20 years ago, I found it difficult to find work. My first job was as a news clerk, answering phones and writing obits.

Now, it appears media companies don’t want to hire anyone over the age of 35.

I’m not upset over this turn of events, even though it smacks of age discrimination. It’s just the way things are. When I was laid off, I was told it was because I was making too much money. It was obvious that the company kept only the younger, lower-paid staffers with much less experience than me. Hard not to think age discrimination isn’t at work in the job market. Isn’t that to the benefit of recent college grads?

But please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t want to see job seekers split along generational fault lines. It’s no more right for young people to resent older workers for the perception that they are taking jobs away from them (I’m Exhibit A that that is not the case) than it is for older workers to rail against college grads for possibly getting hired over them.

It’s just as disheartening to think a career I’ve spent two decades building may have come to a premature end as it is for a recent college grad to not get hired in the field of his or her choice.

Can’t we all just get along? We’re all in this together, and finding a job in any field, at any age, is extremely difficult now. Our lives are on hold until we find a job.

And until this country and its corporations start to put people—of any age—to work, then we, both young and old, are all going to be unemployed for a long, long time.

That ain’t good folks.

Clueless at the Top

Have you ever watched the show, “Undercover Boss”?

I have and it’s quite interesting. Although considering how many people like myself are unemployed, I can certainly understand why CEOs are not our favorite class of people nowadays.

The premise of the show is that a CEO of a major corporation puts on a disguise and works with the underclass of the organization for a week.

During their journey, they are shocked, shocked to find that these people actually work very hard for what are probably pretty crappy salaries. They also seemed surprised to find that these peons are intelligent are caring.

Of course, the CEOs come off as caring as well. But then I don’t think any company president would go on a TV show that made him or her look like a jerk.

Overall, the CEOs seem benevolent but clueless. Yes, there are times when they have to smack down an employee (they are the boss, after all) for doing something pretty outrageous. I have no problem with that. Other times, the employee lacked good intra-personal skills and just required some counseling from HR about how to get along with co-workers.

Yet from the few times I have watched it, I get the impression that the employees are simply following orders that have come down from the corporate office. When the CEO sees the procedures being implementing improperly, he takes it out on the employee. Why is that so when that person is simply following company mandates?

Admittedly, in some instances, the CEO realizes this and decides to change the policies. If there is any academic lesson that comes out of this show is that CEOs should get an idea of how their programs are being implementing at the ground level. What may seem like a great idea in the board room may not be so great when put in actual practice. Perhaps the procedure needs to be changed, not the employee.

In several of the shows I watched, the CEO has actually gone to an employee’s home and met that person’s family who are barely making ends meet. Or an employee tells them they have a disabled child.

Knowing that, I would ask a CEO this: After you have seen how these people are struggling and now that you know them personally—they are not just a name on a sheet of paper—how could you lay off anyone?