Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I'd be really interested to hear opinions about this. I found some of the statistics in it close to unbelievable, but I trust the writer.

It's about poverty in Ohio.




Nov. 3rd, 2003 02:15 pm (UTC)
Well, infinitemonkeys said she wanted opinions.

How does "What, the high-producing, in high demand, highly skilled workers are supposed to be fired first?"
accord with:
"The article glosses over the fact that the highest percentage of jobs lost in the recent down turn were fairly high paying middle management jobs. Not the working poor or working class jobs."?

1)Nationwide - and, as I said below, one of the article's weaknesses is that it uses both local and national numbers (as well as percents and absolutes) as suits it's purpose - more jobs were lost in middle management. That's what's made this an easier downturn than it could be - educated skilled more flexible workers were out of jobs, rather than those already living hand to mouth.

2) And, yes, I was mocking the article's concern over lower skilled workers getting fired first. No matter the wage or skill range - and barring such hampering rules as senority - the less productive worker goes first. Or - rather - the worker who's producing the least per wage paid goes first. If your counter clerk is producing more per dollar of pay than your machinist, and you have extra machinists and clerks, you get rid of the extra machinists.

The high-paying, by industry definition highly-skilled jobs went--

But no longer in demand jobs. Too many people with the same high skills.

The increase in middle-class unemployment doesn't do anything to decrease the working-class/working-poor unemployment -- it means that more people shift from one category to another,

No. It's a shift in percentages - more of the unemployed are middle-class, means that fewer of the unemployed are working class. We're talking income levels before unemployment.

It's not correct to assume that everyone unemployed is now poor.

and there's an increase in people who are no longer making enough to pay for food or for health insurance.

That's different than an increase in unemployment - at least, in the US (as a whole). 90% of our unemployed get a job within a year. (In France, it's 5%, I think.)

What you're talking there is a increase in poor people- and here the article does it's percentage/whole numbers switch again.

FDR's jobs and welfare programs took an ecomony that was starting to turn around and drove the Great Depression even deeper.

I'd really like to see what you're using to support that statement.In re: what people can't afford: I think the article is pretty clear that what they can't afford is food.

I'm so tempted to go on a tear about how really, basicly, fundamentaly frelled up that conclusion is. But I'll leave it as - US food is cheaper than any other country in the world. And US government stats on how much food should cost per person per week are so grossly inflated as to be nearly unuseable.

And I'll get you stats on that, too.

- hossgal