The recent numbers indicate that the economy created 227,000 new jobs, but what about all the jobs that were lost due to the recession/depression? These lost jobs represent a negative number to the overall growth or replacement factor, and until the economy replaces them with new jobs, the unemployment figures cannot begin to realistically reflect a healthy growing economy. According to Federal government, the number of jobs that have been lost during the current recession/depression (2009-2011) is estimated at 2.5 million, so before economic recovery based on employment can be accurately calculated, these 2.5 million unemployed people would have be able to replace their lost job with a new one, at the same income level enjoyed before the recession/depression, with the ability to recoup income losses incurred during the entire time they were unemployed.
What is not being addressed by these government figures is not just how many new jobs are coming on line or how many people are being reemployed, but are these new jobs at the same or greater income rate than the ones that were lost? Let's examine this under a new paradigm.
If a professor in Texas is making $80,000 per year working at Texas A&M and due to state budget cuts becomes unemployed, they would have to replace their lost income with income greater than or equal to its previous level. If the unemployed professor finds a part-time job teaching two classes per semester as an adjunct (academic temp) and now makes $25,000 per year, they are still $55,000 in the hole not counting benefits, which account on average of 25-30% of an employees gross income. If they remain underemployed for three years due to employment supply and demand, (typical competitive job market pressure) they would have lost $90,000 in unrecoverable gross income. How do they make this loss up in a cycle of diminishing returns? Since the professor might work at multiple colleges in an effort to teach four classes and earn $55,000, they are still under-employed, but not employed full time since none of these jobs provide benefits or professional growth.
One could argue that the professor is technically employed, but since they are not listed on the unemployment roles, and since they have stopped officially looking for full time employment due to a competitive job market or the lack of jobs in their field, they are not counted on any unemployment statistics. In essence they have fallen off the unemployment grid. The longer this continues, the longer the professor will continue to lose unrecoverable income because they are underemployed.
What isn't being addresses in the government unemployment figures is not just the number of new jobs, but the kind of jobs created in comparison to the ones that were lost in each government classification.If the professor (out of desperation) takes a full time job at Chick-fil-A for $7.50 per hour, does this count as full time employment? Technically yes, but who would agree that this new full time job compares to their previous career?
Some would argue that unemployed people can be retrained, but with three college degrees (bachelor, master and PhD) who would hire this individual especially if they are over forty-five years of age?
Supporters in the current administration and economist who can't do simple math will state that this professor has more employment options than the steel or autoworker, but they are not taking into consideration that age, education, experience and salary history can be just as great an impediment to full-time employment as skills or trade-crafts that have become antiquated, uncompetitive or outsourced.
As President Ronald Reagan once said "a recession is when your neighbor loses their job, and a depression is when you lose yours..."
No comments:
Post a Comment