Unemployment for Those Who Earn $150,000 or More is Only 3%, While Unemployment for the Poor is 31%

From Naked Capitalism found through DailyKos

Unemployment for Those Who Earn $150,000 or More is Only 3%, While Unemployment for the Poor is 31%

<snip>

Boeing CEO Jim McNerney succinctly summarized a recent study by Northeastern University’s Center for Labor Market Studies regarding unemployment rates for different income brackets:



The study – published in February – notes that the poor are suffering Depression levels of unemployment:



The study is subtitled “A Truly Great Depression Among the Nation’s Low Income Workers Amidst Full Employment Among the Most Affluent”.

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.

<snip>

More: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/04/guest-post-unemployment-for-those-who-earn-150000-or-more-is-only-3-while-unemployment-for-the-poor-is-31.html

Kos Link with more analysis: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/26/860776/-Naked-Capitalism:-Depression-For-The-Poor-w31-Jobless-%28updated%29

:mad:

:kick:

How many people with incomes over 150K CAN be unemployed? Short of trust fund kids and retired superstar athletes and entertainers who invested wisely who else could that be applied to?

On the other end of the spectrum yes many of the poor are working poor but the inverse cannot be held true necessarily, A greater percentage of unemployed people are poor than the percentage of working people who are poor. So of course the unemplyment rate of people in poverty will always be high.

Yes, they're doing okay. no, I am not suggesting we should pitty them or feel bad for them. But they're not rich. not trust fund people, not retired superstar athletes.

Some are doctors. Some are lawyers. Some are business owners. Some sell insurance or wallets or real estate or computers. They do computer consulting. They design houses. They work for the government. They're plumbers or machinists or custom car builders. Most of them work for someone else and are subject to the vagaries and whims of the economy . . . . . and their owner .... er .... boss.

People at the $150K level are wage slaves like everyone else.

That's the crux here. How many people could make that kind of moey AND be unemployed? Very few, so by definition the unemployment rate among those making $150K will be minimal. That's why the whole idea of comparing unemployment rate by income bracket is farcical.


If the comparison were based on differential rates between those who had EVER made $X there would at least be some, albeit only partial, use for the data - to show which jobs are more or less stable. But to compare people who ARE making $150K to those making <$9K as far as une,ployment rates go is pure reflexive idiocy.

Um... it's like... in the article?



:shrug:

I have no clue what's so hard to understand about why this "study" is reflexive BS.

Since the present tense is used in both cases, this means 3.2% of people with CURRENT household incomes over $150K are unemployed. Since an income over $150K is almost impossible to achieve without at least one person in gainful employment (and the exceptions would be said trust fuind babies etc), this "unemployment rate" is limited to people in the same household who wish to work but cnnot find it. Since many households have one person they by definition will not be the 3.2%. Since by common experience most of us know that the need for two incomes in a couple decreases as a single income increases, these couples are less likely to be BOTH looking for work and therefore will not be in the 3.2%, we are left with what exactly? People whose partners make solid incomes but who also want to work. Great if that's something they enjoy, or if they have debts or spending so large that they need a second income. But that's all we are talking about here for the 3.2% bracket. Almost all these houeholds already have at least one full time earner,

Now do you really think we can compare that to households making <9K? That's under poverty level for an individual let alone larger households, so anyone capable of working in such a household will need to look for work and be counted as unemployed. Furthermore it is impossible to be unemployed full time or even most-time as an dault and make <$9K so we ONLY have households with part time workers at best in this category, so obviously more ofthem will be unemployed and looking for work, and in direct contradiction to the first group NONE of them can possibly contain a single full time worker,

So why is it at all meaningful to compare their unemployment rates. Essentially all this study says is "enumployment is higher in households that don't have any full time workers than it is in households that have at least one". IS that not reflexive?

You do not appear of the radar of unemployment figures until you file a claim. That claim is an INDIVIDUAL claim. Is does NOT take into account anybody else in the household.

So this stat is talking about people who WERE making $150,000 a year UNTIL they got laid-off. And of those people in the $150,000/yr bracket, only 3.2% of them are CURRENTLY COLLECTING unemployment benefits.

If they can't find work, and their benefits run out, then they will cease to be counted in the "official" unemployment numbers. If they do find work, let's say at the $30,000/yr bracket, they won't be in the $150,000/yr bracket anymore.

"Official" Unemployment numbers ONLY count those CURRENTLY COLLECTING BENEFITS. All other stats about the "real" unemployment numbers are estimates, and are not considered in the "official" count.

:shrug:

This is specifically comparing households makING (not indiviudals who MADE) $150K+ That's the whole problem - that's why it's reflexive. This is NOT a comparison of income-segmented populations by unemployment rate that are cet par comparable, so take your shrugs to the idiots who thought this was meaningful, not the one who pointed out it wasn't.

DIRECT QUOTE
"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"

Notice it IS houeholds (as I said) Notice it IS present tense (as I said) and notice there is absolutely NO HINT WHATSOEVER of past income (like you claimed)

Did you actually read this or just what to whien about what you thought I got wrong based on assumptions you never checked?

If you go to the report: http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Labor_Underutilization_Problems_of_U.pdf

Go to page 8 and look at Table 3...

Table 3:
Unemployment Rates and Underemployment Rates of Workers in the U.S. by Decile of the Household Income Distribution in the 4th Quarter of 2009 (in %)

It's calling out the same unemployment rates as the article in the OP.

:shrug:

Notice I never said it was false - I said it was reflexive. You were right in saying that that's not how UE rates work. But they are collcted that way too as your link shows, and somebody then started using these data to instead pretend the difference was an example of bias and class warfare instead of inherent in the definition. My concern has always been that latter part.

Bias against the poor exists no doubt. Unemployment rates genuinely ARE higher for those who have always or long been poor no doubt. It's because of a thousand things I'm sure, from speaking accent to opportunities for resume-enhancing experiences to parental influence to race and class and all that. A valuable and useful study could indeed be done on that basis and I have no doubt it would show that people from higher income backgrounds have an easier time finding jobs.

BUT....this study is not it and these conclusions are not useful or indicative of any of that

All this study shows is taht people with more income are more likely to be employed than people with less income. Not only is that blindingly obvious, but it is contained in the question, since very very few people make money other than by working or receiving benefits for not doing so. Showing unemployed people ARE more likely to be poor does not show us that poor people are more likely to BECOME unemployed. The latter is probably true, but the former does nothing to demonstrate that.

The rich have been warring on us pretty effectively since the Reagan era, and far more brutally for generations before that. Slavery, indentured servitude, selling your soul to the company store, etc...

Because of the unions and the New Deal, the regular working stiff got a decent shot. It's been slipping away ever since PATCO... fuck Uncle Ronnie!



:shrug:

...such as that people who make money usually work.

Want to make your point (which as I said I agree is likely true)?

Use a study that shows unemployment rate among people segregated by their PARENTS' income bracket. No idea if such a one exists but that would tell us about bias and class warfare (among other things of course like access to eeucation etc).

That this study says nothing but usless crap does not make your point useless crap - it means it has to be demonstrated by other studies.

:shrug:

I suspect those without a highschool education would fare much poorer than those with a college degree.

then being unemployed is a lot less painful for them than for the rest of us.

"Paycheck to paycheck" is paycheck to paycheck no matter how big the paycheck. If you work for wages, you ain't rich.

Doncha know... it's pretty much over :crazy:
Get the messalready, geez. :eyes:

:(

and doesn't report on behalf of most Americans... and I feel the media is the prime roadblock to returning democracy.

"The overwhelming problem today for most workers isn't this recession, as horrible as it is -- it's the fact that for every earned income level except the top 10%, average household income hasn't changed a bit for 10 years, and that for the bottom 60% of wage earners it hasn't changed for more than 20 years. Through economic expansions and recessions -- and bull and bear markets -- alike, 90% of workers in America have been standing still earnings-wise.

* And 100 million people, fully one-third of the entire U.S. population, are at or below "200% of the federal poverty line of $21,834 for a family of four", which is a needs-measure made lame by the fact that no family of four can actually comfortably live on such a low annual income."

http://www.alternet.org/story/145950/our_dirty_little_secret%3A_who%27s_really_poor_in_america?page=entire

Providing an increasing number of un/underemployed workers jobs with barely subsistence wages isn't a recovery. It's maintaining the status quo in it's seemingly endless downward slide.

This is trickle down in full swing. No politician in either party plans to put a halt to it. The big money for politicians isn't in fixing problems it's in pretending to fix them. The top 10% are in full control.

The stimulus/bailout money went to those that remained in top 10% through this disaster. The financial services industry and big money investors are doing just fine.

Folks looking for low wage jobs, whatever their pre-recession status was, are doing it in the middle of a full blown depression. There is no getting around that fact.

And they will all be saddened and shocked that such radical measures were required to restore order.
:kick: & R

Yeah... huh...

:hi:

e.g., M.D.'s are unlikely to be unemployed because they will always be needed. While unskilled labor has a greater pool of workers, and fewer jobs to go around.

My question is, how different is this discrepancy from "good" economic times? E.g., back when unemployment was at 6%, was it 1% for those over $150k, but 12% for those under 20k?

And are less likely to be unemployed. I suspect this is true no matter what the economic conditions.

As my dad always said, "learn to do something no one else can do, but that everyone needs. And you'll never be out of a job."

The number of poor in this country wouldn't be on the rise if we still made things. Communities used to be built around industries such as textiles, shoe manufacturers and appliance makers. No more. The people who used to make a decent living are now left to Walmart and fast food restaurants. The people who crafted the disastrous trade agreements seemed to think every Tom, Dick and Mildred was going to suddenly become a neurosurgeon and get by just fine.

Here's the standard one:



http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/03/unemployment-rate-and-level-of.html

It's pretty clear that education is correlated with lower unemployment rates.

Those with a higher level of education are less likely to be unemployed, but they are also a much more motivated group of people in general. In other words, someone who took the initiative to go to college is more likely to be the type of person who will do whatever it takes to land a job. Someone who graduated college is even more likely to see the job search process through to fruition, etc.

What the chart doesn't tell us is whether the degree holders actually have a job in their chosen professions or if they are taking drink orders and answering phones, like many of the college grads I know.

and see what happens.... I'm not so sure those numbers hold up well for a 50 year old in NYC where 150 is not a huge salary