Unemployment at 26 Year High

[FOTD]

OSS in full apology mode in here. Obama assured us employment would not exceed 8% if stimulus passed, did he? Yes or No. This lie was the driving force behind this thing Trillion dollar, which has failed by any objective standard, passing. Hell, even Biden is saying they got it wrong. But noooo, Chicken Little and other TN Obama spooners are taking the "hey, look over here" or burying the head in the sand positions because their hero can't be wrong.

Boehner is right, where are the jobs that were promised?  The response? Hey, what about Reagan. Obama's administration backing off his pledge not to raise taxes on those making $250K? Hey, what about Bush. That's right, it's Bush's fault that the stimulus went through (only three rino repubs in the Senate voted for it); it's Bush's fault that the govt took over GM & Chrysler, it's Bush's fault that the Omnibus bill passed, it's Bush's fault that smokers got a nice tax increase, it's Bush's fault that cap and trade has made it through the house...

I will be 100% honest here, I am laughing my a$$ off over the unemployment rate increasing, especially those college grads or union workers that voted for Obama and are now back living with their parents working at Wendy's. Hey, "Do you want fries with that?" or "please pull forward to the first window" is probably not what they envisioned they would be saying by voting for the hip president. In the immortal words from Nelson:

Such a rigid little Doofus, Gweedoe doe

[rhymnrzn]

I will be 100% honest here, I am laughing my a$$ off over the unemployment rate increasing, especially those college grads or union workers that voted for Obama and are now back living with their parents working at Wendy's. Hey, "Do you want fries with that?" or "please pull forward to the first window" is probably not what they envisioned they would be saying by voting for the hip president. In the immortal words from Nelson:

heh, and imagine how lowly it is to not even be worthy to eat and drink at their hand.....

[Chicken Little]

Boehner...

From the Plain Dealer:

Boehner backpedals on stimulus comments
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Joan Mazzolini
Plain Dealer Reporter

When U.S. House Minority Leader John Boehner told a newscaster Sunday that not a single stimulus-funded road contract in his home state of Ohio had been let, he was wrong.

The Ohio Department of Transportation has OK'd 52 stimulus-funded road and bridge projects at a cost of nearly $84 million.

Boehner told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that in "Ohio, the infrastructure dollars that were sent there months ago," as part of the economic recovery package, "there hasn't been a contract let, to my knowledge."

Like I said before, Boehner doesn't know what he's talking about...but don't let that stand in the way of your unrequited love for the guy, Guido.

[USRufnex]

OSS in full apology mode in here. Obama assured us employment would not exceed 8% if stimulus passed, did he? Yes or No. This lie was the driving force behind this thing Trillion dollar, which has failed by any objective standard, passing. Hell, even Biden is saying they got it wrong.
I will be 100% honest here, I am laughing my a$$ off over the unemployment rate increasing, especially those college grads or union workers that voted for Obama and are now back living with their parents working at Wendy's. Hey, "Do you want fries with that?" or "please pull forward to the first window" is probably not what they envisioned they would be saying by voting for the hip president. In the immortal words from Nelson:

LIAR LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE.



Barack Obama is a politician, not a messiah.... keep building that STRAWMAN ARGUMENT, freeper spooning Guido.



You are beyond obnoxious.
You should be ashamed of yourself.  When you REVEL in other people's misery, it shows how wicked you yourself have become....

Reagan went back on MANY of his promises..... his economic advisers were WRONG on several occasions... and the country paid for it, with the Reagan recession.

Whose presidency was the only one since the depression that had double digit unemployment?

Nixon?  No.
Ford?  No.
Carter?  Nope.
Bush? No, neither one.

It was Ronald Reagan.
The highest unemployment rates were a full two to three years into Reagan's first term.

The American people will give Obama 2-3 years before judging how effective or ineffective his economic policies have been... rabid flat-tax Republicans like Guido clearly have no interest in history, other than their feeble attempts to re-write it.

[USRufnex]

heh, and imagine how lowly it is to not even be worthy to eat and drink at their hand.....

Some story about a camel and the eye of a needle comes to mind.....

[FOTD]

The result of Reaganomics and their banksters....we need to print more money and get it out there to stimulate jobs. The Repigs will say "NO." So this time, jam it down.


U.S. consumers fall behind on loans at record pace

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtUSInvestingNews/idUSTRE56638720090707

"The biggest driver is job losses," ABA Chief Economist James Chessen said in an interview. "When people lose their jobs or work fewer hours, it makes it that much harder to meet their obligations. Unfortunately, we're going to see higher job losses in the next year, and I expect elevated delinquencies."


Saw Larry Krudlow belly aching about raising the minimum wage just yesterday....he's on CNBC and plays the Bill Olielly part....he's an a$$bite conservative who was willing to bail out the creeps from Wall St. and the banksters. When it comes to saving the middle class, he's absent.

[rhymnrzn]

There's alot of lying about hiring going on, as they say they are hiring, and take people through the motions, all to maintain appearances.  It is hard to have a good conscience about persuing employment, when we have multiple individuals competing for the same position; I'd rather let the next brother get his needs who has a household to provide for: I can get by on little. 

It's either years of plenty or years of famine with this nation, it seems.  Here we have the prospect of cutting off people from their employment, to what end who knows.  The pillars deserve to be compensated for their help to society: but how long do we not support the weak, and suffer the value of a day's wages for the labour of the field (which everybody partakes of) to be diminished and undermined?  It is true that if one does not work, neither should they eat, yet, the hire of man and beast should include ample time for rest and debt forgiveness in common seasons.

But whoredoms and drunkeness, especially of the spiritual sort (which lead to carnal wars), will take away the heart, and choke out the healing of the nation.

[cannon_fodder]

  It is hard to have a good conscience about persuing [sic] employment, when we have multiple individuals competing for the same position;

That would be capitalism.  Even when unemployment is low and falling, a position with an appropriate salary should have 5-10 qualified applicants seeking to be hired.  If you are only applying for positions that no one else wants, you are probably setting the bar a little low.

Not to detract from the overall rambling intent of your post . . .

[rhymnrzn]

^oh, so the intent of your post is to put me back in line with respecting your persons, and continue to add to the 50 plus employment [sic] applications I've already hopped and skippped to deliver?

[cannon_fodder]

My intent was to point out that nearly always there is more than one person applying for a single job and that in fact such competition is healthy and how the most qualified or best fitting person is hired.  If you are only applying for jobs that no one else wants then it denotes the quality of jobs you are seeking or the compensation associated therein.  Your sense of altruism is misplaced, don't avoid applying for a job simply because others are seeking it.

I have no idea what you mean by respecting my persons or encouraging you to skip dropping off applications. 

And "[sic]" denotes a mistake in a quotation that was in the original.  It is not commentary.  Merely a way to quote a person without having their mistakes attributed to the quoting author.

[swake]

There's alot of lying about hiring going on, as they say they are hiring, and take people through the motions, all to maintain appearances. 

I can tell you that's just plain false. Companies do NOT go through the motions on interviewing to in order to "maintain appearances". I have hired enough people over the years that I can tell you that the process that happens with getting a position approved, posted/advertised, vetted, interviewed, reinterviewed, checked, hired, trained, and nurtured into a valuable employee is so time consuming, frustrating, difficult and exhausting, not to mention expensive, that no one does any part of it to go through the motions. It's even worse when you are replacing someone. All that person's work has to be done by someone while you are in the hiring process. And hiring is very time consuming. Firings don't happen easily, and neither do hirings.

When hiring you have to be sensitive to the emotions of everyone you deal with, especially in the bad times when people are desperate. Good or bad for your job, everyone deserves respect. There are so many people that look good on paper that once you talk to them you have no idea how that piece of paper is related to the person you are speaking with, but you can't show that. Then here are a lot of people that look good on paper and then even in person but are in reality just good con men. Figuring it all out and finding the right person to hire is almost an art form.

The hiring process might just be the hardest part of management. That and firing. And about the worst part is dealing with a mistake you've made in the hiring process and then having to go back through it all again.

[rhymnrzn]

My intent was to point out that nearly always there is more than one person applying for a single job and that in fact such competition is healthy and how the most qualified or best fitting person is hired.  If you are only applying for jobs that no one else wants then it denotes the quality of jobs you are seeking or the compensation associated therein.  Your sense of altruism is misplaced, don't avoid applying for a job simply because others are seeking it.

Yet it is acceptable, and not offensive, for a brother such as myself, with only myself to provide for, to be humble and base.  At that, what job is there that one reasonably wants done (having the loot to pay) that cannot find someone to do it?  are we not watching unemployment taking a monsterous course?  I see many job fairs, and other posts for hiring that are not sincere.  If they are in it for the best employees they can get, yet it cannot always benefit for being exclusive and judgemental: in fact it is a sore drain, with all this processing.  It quickly turns into defrauding and over-demanding of good people, even if you like to say their work is "denoted".  Either hire or deny on the spot (or shortly) with straight dealing, or quit taking dozens and dozens more apps (which requires the time and effort of those people) for the same "job openning".

I have no idea what you mean by respecting my persons or encouraging you to skip dropping off applications.

Respecting the capitalist persons you spake of.  Wealth gotten by honest gain is good, but the covetous should not be allowed to damage the dollar, let alone bear rule, period.

[Conan71]

I can tell you that's just plain false. Companies do NOT go through the motions on interviewing to in order to "maintain appearances". I have hired enough people over the years that I can tell you that the process that happens with getting a position approved, posted/advertised, vetted, interviewed, reinterviewed, checked, hired, trained, and nurtured into a valuable employee is so time consuming, frustrating, difficult and exhausting, not to mention expensive, that no one does any part of it to go through the motions. It's even worse when you are replacing someone. All that person's work has to be done by someone while you are in the hiring process. And hiring is very time consuming. Firings don't happen easily, and neither do hirings.

When hiring you have to be sensitive to the emotions of everyone you deal with, especially in the bad times when people are desperate. Good or bad for your job, everyone deserves respect. There are so many people that look good on paper that once you talk to them you have no idea how that piece of paper is related to the person you are speaking with, but you can't show that. Then here are a lot of people that look good on paper and then even in person but are in reality just good con men. Figuring it all out and finding the right person to hire is almost an art form.

The hiring process might just be the hardest part of management. That and firing. And about the worst part is dealing with a mistake you've made in the hiring process and then having to go back through it all again.

Spoken like someone who's actually had to manage people. 

+1 Swake

[USRufnex]

I guess if this were Little House on the Prairie, I'd like the concept of hiring "on the spot."  

But in the big city, this very same concept of "straight dealing" can morph into ...... "it's not what you know, it's who you know"... aka "cronyism" or "crony capitalism"....

Unfortunately, Job Fairs are notoriously inefficient in bringing qualified applicants to employers.  That's why good "headhunters" get paid good $$$.  Problem is, the very same people who tell prospective employers they JUST NEED A JOB and will take anything that is available, rarely last very long after they're hired... of course, job applicants in places where the economy really sucks will eventually understand the nuances of the system, try to game the system, which becomes a vicious circle which raises the bar in that particular job market-- an applicant in Chicago will be required to score higher on certain initial interviews than corresponding applicants in Tulsa or Nashville....

Rhymnrzn, sounds like you have a collection of those dreaded "postcards of rejection."  The job market in Tulsa is not nearly as bad as it is in other cities, and unemployment isn't nearly as bad as it was in the "Great Depression"....

Job hunting is like fishing...... you find the right bait (your resume)...... you get a few nibbles, you get a bite....... and you reel in the catch by communicating to your employer what makes you tick, and why this job will be personally satisfying to you, which will, in turn, convince them to hire you.

Now, if overqualified people with college degrees and decades of work in high profile industries were stuck applying for call center work rather than be forced to relocate (like former Eastman-Kodak employees in Rochester, NY), then I'd be concerned about the job market.

Until then, although I feel bad for people in this economy..... most of those people aren't Tulsans.

[guido911]

Ran across this today. The unemployment situation is worse than people realize:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753066246235811.html#mod=rss_opinion_main

Change they can believe in.