65
Plenty of jobs, lazy Americans just don't want them
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Fox's John Stossel.
Some people look at our 8.1 percent unemployment rate and say, there aren't enough jobs out there. But others say there are plenty, Americans just aren't willing to do them. One of those people is John Stossel, host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network.
Stossel did a Fox News special called "Out of Work," where he argues that there are plenty of jobs in the United States, Americans aren't willing to take them. He points the blame on a more-than-generous government safety net.
"We've taught people that in some cases it's easier to be dependent, and you're a sucker if you pound the pavement and work at one of those tough minimum wage jobs," he told host Jeremy Hobson.
Listen to the interview above to hear from Stossel about why he thinks both the "help wanted index" and the unemployment numbers are higher than ever now.
Pages
Fox news. Nuff said. *eyeroll*
But really, you mean to tell me if 7,000,000 people out of work, and way less jobs in demand, it's simply because all those people are lazy? Get real. And the fact that they tried to back it up by saying "ooh look at how many job openings we found just walking down the street." is laughable.
"They just wish more people would apply." More people. That would imply that people have already applied to that job, but just weren't hired. So one lucky person out of the hundreds that applied to that particular job is hard a hard working citizen while the rest of those people are just lazy good for nothings? That's a very shallow and inaccurate observation.
What people really need to do to help the economy grow is start their own businesses or find a way to be constructive. Everyone needs to work and to spend reasonably.
The unemployment problem requires a two-way-road solution:
Students need to learn skills that will prepare them for the jobs that are out there and, at the same time, professionals and companies need to let students know about what they should learn while in school. We have created a forum that encourages that type of collaboration at the community level with www.lendexperience.com
Give back to your community today and share your experiences.
The unemployment problem requires a two-way-road solution:
Students need to learn skills that will prepare them for the jobs that are out there and, at the same time, professionals and companies need to let students know about what they should learn while in school. We have created a forum that encourages that type of collaboration at the community level with www.lendexperience.com
Give back to your community today and share your experiences.
I think that John Stossel misses the mark in his description of unemployment. It's a program intended to give people a chance to be hired in their field and apply their skills in a meaningful way. To be on unemployment a person has to be fired or laid off. It's not a situation where you choose to go on an unemployment holiday, and as anyone who's looked for a job recently knows, a job search in a professional field often takes 6 months. I'm on unemployment and just had a job offer after a year of searching. Yes I chose to not take work that pays $7/hour and instead I put all of my energy towards finding a job that utilizes my graduate education. My significantly higher wages will have greater rewards for the economy in the long run than if I had taken a job that would have not supported me and probably would have resulted in a default on my student loans. Additionally, I'm in a field where I create products and actively help grow the economy. I paid into the system so that when I got laid off I had a safety net. If I had opted to quit my job then the onus is on me, but I didn't. Now that I'm re-entering the workforce I'll happily pay into unemployment insurance again - as an individual and as a taxpayer.
The problem is, there was a time when minimum wage or just above it was for teenagers. Now, people go to work and wait years sometimes to get raises and then some scumbag decides to save $2 to $5 an hour by hiring someone new at minimum wage. When I was in college, I worked at a gas station for 5 years until 2004...I worked my way up from $7 to $9.50; slowly. I would see memos to the managers telling them not to rate above a certain score on employee evaluations so as to minimize annual raises. 5 years for $2.50 extra an hour. Then, the stations where franchised to some "entrepeneur" whose first act was changing the night time work incentive from $1 per hour to 50 Cents for 6 hours; he figured he'd save $5 per station per night which amounted to about $50 for all ten. Then, my manager started calling me at home to bother me about the cleanliness of the hot dog machine... I couldn't figure it out at first, but the harrassment became so unbearable, I quit. Then, two weeks later he calls me and tells me that he was instructed by the new owner to find a way to get rid of all the employees who made over $7.50 per hour and get them to quit so he wouldn't have to be liable for unemployment benefits. My former manager then said he didn't want to get rid of me because I was his best employee and that the hot dog machine thing was the only thing he could think of to make me quit. I then told him "yeah, I figured as much because it was clean every morning but you kept calling me and telling me it wasn't so I knew there was something fishy going on. The aforementioned story goes on everyday. It's not even about the best people for the jobs, but the mediocre ones who will accept the lower wages...just look at some of the people working and it isn't hard to figure out. You say to yourself when you look at them "You were the best qualified. Really??? You?? And then they say what relatively low wage they make that in their feeble minds is "success." You see people making $40,000 a year in fields that used to pay $80,000 routinely, but most of those people who made the higher wages have been gone for some time. This is why about 15 years ago there became this big push by employers not to discuss wages with other employees; to get rid of the higher paid ones while keeping the low paid ones in the dark.
I was frankly aghast by the shallowness of your interview with John Stossel concerning the unemployed. For a public radio based program, I expect substantive questions to be directed at all interviewees regardless of their political leanings, media influence, or business position. I experienced unemployment for 6 months early in my professional career and managed to endure the complete upheaval of life that it brought, the effects of which lingered years afterwards. My experience was far from some sort of paid vacation between jobs and ultimately resulted in my becoming far less ambitious regarding a corporate sector career because I was unwilling to risk further unemployment and economic upheaval. I was frankly offended at the tepid quality of your questions to Mr. Stossel, especially concerning his conclusions presented as “statistical” facts based only on poorly assembled anecdotal evidence by his Midtown Manhattan staff.
This type of “blame the victim” mentality is representative of a vocal population in this country of at best naive persons lacking in patience, experience of difficult economic times, and empathy for the plight of the unemployed, poor, or anyone who happens to be less than successful, and in need of the social safety net. It became obvious from his statements that Mr. Stossel would apparently prefer to live in a modern version of 19th century Dickensian society where little or no help is provided for anyone in need, and scarce, overburdened charities disperse meager triaged assistance. Your interview was so badly questioned, that I must conclude that you were either unprepared for the interview, are extraordinarily naïve about unemployment, or agree with his premises.
It is just soooo much more complicated than this. Our entire economic system is flawed, from welfare to minimum wage to CEO salaries. For instance, it is easy to tell someone without a job to get up and move across country to where the jobs are, and more complicated to actually do that. Are there people who manipulate the system? Of course. Are there hard-working people who desire an honest wage for an honest day's work but can't find it? Absolutely. I wager there are many more without work who want to work than those content to live off of hand-outs. I say we need depression-era jobs like the CCC and WPA. Pay for it by taxing the millionaires.
Mr. Stossel did have a good point about Americans who simply refuse to go out and get jobs that are currently being held predominantly by immigrants. However, to suggest that the "fat" and "generous" welfare programs this country has are responsible for this has no connection with reality. Our welfare system has been stripped down to the point where you have to actually be destitute to qualify for it--and even then the "beneifits" that are given aren't even enough to actually sustain a person for a month. Two years ago, when my wife lost her job, we applied for food stamps and energy assistance until she could get back on her feet. We were denied by both programs because the income cutoff is based on a poverty line system that is totally out of whack with the lives of people who work for a living. We also learned that, had we qualified, we would have only been allowed less than $200/month, which is nowhere near enough to sustain even one person for food and heating costs. So, we wore sweaters, coats and hats in the house and were fortunate enough to get help from a local food bank. Fortunately my wife was able to find work (low paying, but better than nothing) after a few months. Before Mr. Stossel continues to spew his completely uninformed opinion, he should first try to live on those "fat" and "generous" benefits he seems to think are the root cause of our problems.
Pages
