If you've been looking for work full time for 6 months and not a single employer has wanted to hire you, being unemployed for 6 months is the least of your problems.
Absolutely correct. The proposed scenario suggesting that the long term unemployed consists of competent, skilled and psychologically capable people who have spent 8 hrs a day working hard preparing and customizing resumes and going on interviews, but have not had a single offer after more than six months of doing this on a daily basis is complete fiction. Perhaps there is a single person who falls into this category, a minute fraction of a single percent of the long term unemployed. Even that assumption that out there is one single competent person who did all this and had no offers is highly questionable. Portraying something that ranges from non-existent to exceptionally rare as the normal condition is just promoting nonsense. The reality is that the long term unemployed population is not comprised of competent and skilled people diligently working 8 hrs each day seriously seeking a job by contacting companies, sending out resumes, and going on interviews.
I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Usually, what happens is, they spend the time looking for jobs they are qualified for and want, and don't get. Then they spend some of their time looking for jobs they are overqualified for as well, and usually don't get.
That's 6 months.
I've done it. I was unemployed for about a year; during that time I went on about a dozen interviews, did volunteer work, took courses etc. so as to have something to explain what I did during this blank period on my resume.
I learned much better multi-tasking skills during this period, and how to organize dozens of contacts, because if job x calls you and you've applied to 28 jobs in the last 10 days, you have to know immediately who they are and what they do as well as what you said to them in your customized application.
Personally, I'd like to see better integration between linkedin and my smartphone to facilitate this. Anyone working on that?
Applying to jobs is hard, not getting them is hard, and there's about 10% unemployment in the US for a reason. It's not just because 10% of people are lazy or incompetent and 90% are hardworking and good.
> Nonfarm payroll employment edged up in March, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
> In March, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 4.6 million. These individuals accounted for 39.6 percent of the unemployed.
One must wonder if 39.6 percent of 7.6 percent is 10 percent, or is it 3 percent.
A three percent incompetence rate is lower than ten percent. It's also almost identical to the 3.1% of the population who are under correctional supervision: either in prison or on parole. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aainjail.htm)
With a full 3% of the population actually in the correctional system, it is not hard to imagine that there is also 3% of the population incapable of contributing meaningfully to a job. Half of Detroit residents are functionally illiterate. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/07/detroit-illiteracy-...) 36% of Washington DC residents are functionally illiterate. (http://voices.yahoo.com/more-than-one-third-washington-dc-re...) Nationally, 21% of adults are functionally illiterate. To think that the vast numbers of illiterate adults who are also unemployed are ready and capable of holding down a job in a meaningful sense is a complete fantasy.
Yeah, you're focused on unemployment numbers after the redefinition of unemployment. That's not as accurate. Technically there were a lot of unemployed left out of the earlier evaluations as well, but this problem is worse now. It's to the point where the data isn't nearly as useful, or perhaps is useful in different ways. Either way it's a very poor tool for measuring long-term unemployed.
Your illiteracy studies? Not particularly rigorous science behind them. Not usually a good sign when what you cite sources no peer-reviewed studies at all. It's interesting that you chose those two places along with the correctional system to focus on, though.
But go ahead, blame my math, logic, and research skills.
The National Institute for Literacy is a federal agency that was established by the National Literacy Act in 1991 and reauthorized in 1998 by the Workforce Investment Act. There's nothing wrong with their methodology. Their measurements are consistent with other studies, but theirs are the most recent and are done nationally so are likely the most reliable. Feel free to cite other studies if you prefer, I notice that your post contained no references, just smug dismissals of data with citations.
Now you've moved from saying I'm bad at math to calling me smug, and saying that I'm dismissing your data. I'm not dismissing your data; you have cited NO DATA.
Your first link referenced what amounts to a policy paper by the Detroit Regional Literacy Fund. Which is actually interesting because it implies the link goes to a study by the National Institute for Literacy.
As an aside, I'm not doubting the reputation of the National Institute for Literacy. I just don't trust any study I can't see the data from. This is a personal thing, but it comes from working and being friends with people that routinely manipulate data for Federal Policy Think-Tanks.
So first you have the Huffington Post with two sources, one that doesn't have any references in it and makes statements without visible justification and another that is The Wall Street Journal. Second, you've got a Yahoo Voices article: Your second link listed these sources: www.proliteracy.org, The Washington Post, Wikipedia, BBC News and the Associated Press. So you've got publications sourcing other publications.
The reason I don't immediately trust everything on the Huffinton Post and periodicals that don't actually source any studies AT ALL, is because they often draw inaccurate conclusions from bad data, or use sources that have no scientific grounding.
This happens a lot with medical studies.
The other problem is you seem to be assuming that the unemployed population is the same as the illiterate population. I don't know why you assume this, as your sources don't have any causative inferences.
Detroit has high illiteracy. Detroit also has high unemployment. Without a study, though, there is no implied causation.
If all you want is a citation from a periodical, I can do that: how about this that says 53% of recent college graduates are un- or underemployed?
