iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

'No Labor Market Recession For America's Affluent,' Low-Wage Workers Hit Hardest: STUDY

Jobs

Huffington Post   First Posted: 04/12/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:30 PM ET

It's truly been a tale of two unemployment crises.

Though the national unemployment rate dipped slightly in January to 9.7 percent, a new study suggests that not only have low-income workers been the hardest hit by the jobs crisis -- but, shockingly, there has been "no labor market recession for America's affluent."

The study from Andrew Sum, Ishwar Khatiwada and Sheila Palma at Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies suggests that the unemployment problem is largely a problem for low-wage workers (hat tip to the Curious Capitalist).

From the study:

At the end of calendar year 2009, as the national economy was recovering from the recession of 2007-2009, workers in different segments of the income distribution clearly found themselves in radically different labor market conditions. A true labor market depression faced those in the bottom two deciles of the income distribution, a deep labor market recession prevailed among those in the middle of the distribution, and close to a full employment environment prevailed at the top. There was no labor market recession for America's affluent.

At the New York Times, Bob Herbert delved into the study and noted, "The point here is that those in the lower-income groups are in a much, much deeper hole than the general commentary on the recession would lead people to believe." Here's more from Herbert:

The highest group, with household incomes of $150,000 or more, had an unemployment rate during that quarter of 3.2 percent. The next highest, with incomes of $100,000 to 149,999, had an unemployment rate of 4 percent.


Contrast those figures with the unemployment rate of the lowest group, which had annual household incomes of $12,499 or less. The unemployment rate of that group during the fourth quarter of last year was a staggering 30.8 percent. That's more than five points higher than the overall jobless rate at the height of the Depression.

According to the study, approximately 50 percent of households in the bottom decile of American income distribution are underemployed; in the second lowest decile, 37 percent of households can't find enough work. The authors write: "These extraordinarily high rates of labor underutilization among these two income groups would have to be classified as symbolic of a True Great Depression."

On the other hand, the study notes that the top two income deciles (households earning over $100,000 per year) are near a "full employment environment."

READ the entire study here:


Labor_Underutilization_Problems_of_U -
FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
It's truly been a tale of two unemployment crises. Though the national unemployment rate dipped slightly in January to 9.7 percent, a new study suggests that not only have low-income workers been the...
It's truly been a tale of two unemployment crises. Though the national unemployment rate dipped slightly in January to 9.7 percent, a new study suggests that not only have low-income workers been the...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 6,933
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (80 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marijam
Independent
05:15 PM on 02/12/2010
Here's the latest wrinkle. Have you received your homeowner's insurance renewal notice for this year? Has it went up 50% Is it because you are suddenly being considered to be a higher risk due to the amount of credit that you have and are using? If you've asked for credit within the last 18 months and you are using 75% of an existing credit line, you're higher risk. Doesn't matter if you pay it off every year or what your total income is.
11:57 PM on 02/11/2010
Hmm, I can't imagine having a high five figure income and then having it vanish in a year. With that said those that are getting employment have one thing in common, education. Therefore, is this just the next part of human evolution that it is the "smart" or educated that will survive and the gene pool is thinned out of uneducated people?

Not being able to adapt to ones environment has been a critical step in evolution of any sorts. It is why some species survive and others fail. While it is wealthy affluent people who survive the poor and uneducated are erraticated.

With that said, affluence corrupts and the poor become bitter with no opportunity to improve. Therefore, I believe the "forefathers" for better or worse designed a nation so all people have freedom of choice...... ignorant affluence is dangerous and so is ignorant poverty..... the solution is education away from schools and universities..... education in......... (you fill in the blank)
12:05 AM on 02/12/2010
Not all poor people are uneducated. I 've spent 15+ years in IT and with all the outsourcing overseas many of those jobs are gone. It has to do with corporate greed and corruption not the lack of an education.

But thanks for lumping us 100 to 150k IT people the poor lifetime laborers
10:31 PM on 02/12/2010
There are more millionaires with no high school diploma than any college degree, except finance. In a Social Darwinian sense, those people are the most adapted. So, bless us educated people that we may not be eradicated.
11:00 PM on 02/11/2010
Yeah let's not forget we live in a two income family era and if one is use to making 100k and the other fills in with 30 or 40k and takes care of the child and then all of sudden you are both are out of work and that drops from 130/140k to zero it is pretty catastrophic. If it weren't for republicans we'd at least get 24k of EB but because of all the delays it's closer to 12k per year. 12k per year, I am definitely voting dem this year because the repubs are just saying no to everything just to be a#$%es. I have never had less respect for them in my 50 years. Don't get me wrong though, almost all the politicians are on the take and all crooks have got to go. Otherwise we are all just stupid.

Come help us fight at http://www.fight4abetterlife.org
photo
Pilatunes
Best described as miscellaneous
04:24 PM on 02/11/2010
I am sure that identifying a solution or solutions to this is something that could be discussed ad finitum. However, when I contemplate the matter I think the single biggest contributor to ending unemployment and underemployment is to invest in education. The more people get an education, the more likely you are to find someone who can invent something, design something, found a company or what have you. And the more educated the populace, the more likely that company is to stick around. I've got a fair amount of business experience, and the scarcest resource of all is capable people. And those people can't all be got cheap by offshoring either.

Of course, with education, I don't know if it is a 'if you build it they will come' situation. I don't know if having a good school is enough. Couldn't hurt though.

As an aside, it always strikes me as how poor the general level of education is when I hear, time and time again, people using 'drug' as the past tense of 'drag'. SO MANY PEOPLE SAY THAT!
JNarragansett
Check your premises
04:59 PM on 02/11/2010
Adjusting for inflation, we have doubled our investment in education since the 1970's with no discernible results except for a growing bureaucracy in education. I agree that we should improve education, but throwing money at schools seems to do as much for children as lighting that money on fire in the middle of a field. The most successful method for improving education has been school choice, whether through charter schools or education tax credits. We could reduce our investment in education while getting better results.
photo
Pilatunes
Best described as miscellaneous
06:00 PM on 02/11/2010
I have to be honest the merits or demerits of school choice isn't something I've really looked at too closely.
12:19 AM on 02/12/2010
Education is certainly a key factor but you have to look at all the graduates that can't find good jobs. Plus you have to look at the educated that have been sold out by corporate America. If I were to do it all over again I would go into politics because that's where the money really is.

Pilatunes, I think your comments about the scarcity of good qualified people come from your experience prior to this crisis. There are plenty of good people available these days. Companies can choose us or an overseas worker for less then 1/4th the cost.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
inorbit
04:18 PM on 02/11/2010
Oh, gee, I thought they were all employed by WalMart!
11:23 AM on 02/11/2010
According to the 2009-2010 Poverty Guidlines. $250,00 is the poverty level for a family of 65.
At minmum wage it would take working full time for 15 years to make $250,000.
photo
Pilatunes
Best described as miscellaneous
12:29 PM on 02/11/2010
A family of 65? Not even the execrable Duggar's managed that. ;)
05:57 PM on 02/12/2010
Yeah and 250.00? Don't even get me started.
11:05 AM on 02/11/2010
$100,000 is NOT rich...seriously
http://yieldpig.blogspot.com/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anitaj
12:05 PM on 02/11/2010
I could be quite comfortable in six-figure poverty.
12:25 AM on 02/12/2010
150 to 200k maybe but 100k is just squeaking by when you have to consider the fact you have to live in the city and pay a high rent or mortgage, overpriced utilities, overpriced food, drive a decent, pay for auto and part of your health insurance, high priced gas to get to work and back, and let's not forget that a 1/3rd goes to taxes. Then of course there is trying to save a nickel for your old age seeing how there are no pensions anymore unless you are in the union or in politics. 100k doesn't get you very far these days.
photo
AwakeNow
just flew into town
11:01 AM on 02/11/2010
Of course they have no worries of job loss . Even if they were to lose work they simply stay at home and work the system to profit off of others misery.
10:52 AM on 02/11/2010
There is no time when the top decile has low employment by definition. When a job evaporates at the top the employee iether; finds a new job at the same level, drops out of that decile, or has the mobility to work out of the country. no matter what happens it always will appear that the top brackets have full employment. I know for a fact that tens of thousands of high income jobs, especially in realestate firms, and small investment firms have been lost.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
madgrrl
02:23 PM on 02/11/2010
You are right. It's called underemployment. How about his familiar story - happens to so many people. Fifty year old man or woman gives up time with their children and maybe a marriage to work long hours to reach managerial level. Yes! They are proof the American dream is real - anyone can do it if they work hard enough, get an education, etc.. One day they are escorted to their desk with a box, sign a contract (I will not sue age discrimination, etc , if you give me severance), told good luck, and escorted from the building. After the shock, they start the job search and find out - no way in hell are they ever going to find a replacement job at the pay they made - not at their age. So they move from house to condo. Take a cut in pay, lease a vehicle. Tell everyone - we are doing fine - we don't need the big house, but see - we still have a fancy car - still "successful"... The new American reality. Has it ever been different? I wonder...
10:33 AM on 02/11/2010
You give a dollar to the poor, they spend it.
You give a dollar to the rich , they invest it.
Difference between need & want.
photo
AwakeNow
just flew into town
11:04 AM on 02/11/2010
I have no problem with wealthy people. I do have a problem with how people get their monies. To steal from others through various opportunities is not really working ....... it's stealing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
madgrrl
02:27 PM on 02/11/2010
And that is why the rich don't need so many tax cuts and the poor do - the poor/middle class will spend all their money to meet their basic needs. Their money will flow back into the American economy. The rich will stash it, or go on a fancy European vacation - this will not flow back into our economy - or have a smaller impact.
10:29 AM on 02/11/2010
So what about the job bill, Obama?
Or the Volcker plan?
Or healthcare?
Or anything
can we please make some progress already?

good articles: http://stock-news-online.6te.net
12:30 AM on 02/12/2010
Don't blame him; blame the repubs that insist on their friends getting a piece of everything.
06:40 AM on 02/13/2010
Blame the Republicans...Blame the Republicans...Blame the Republicans...Blame the Republicans...
Sure the Dems have a super majority in both houses and it is the Blame the Republicans...fault!! Give me a break!!!
With you Dems its always some one eles fault!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SuperEd
09:56 AM on 02/11/2010
Everything done economically in the last 10 years has eroded middle and low income wage earnings.
Not rocket science here. Most of the money is sucked up by the top 2 or 3 percent. Much less for the bottom. Then the "financial crisis" appears and tells us there wasn't enough money to go around in the first place. Even less money for the bottom.
09:49 AM on 02/11/2010
I didn't have time to read the actual study but this seems flawed to me. If you are analyzing unemployment rates based on income doesn't unemployment itself throw everything off.

My income last year was clearly in the top decile because I was employed. After loosing my position my income this year will be bottom quartile. The people hit hardest slide down the income scale and end up settling in the bottom quartiles.

I've seen thousands of six figure corporate positions evaporate over the last 2 years. Last year there were 12,000 people nationwide that held my exact position. This year 3500. I'm not buying this study at all.

Am I missing something here?
03:52 PM on 02/11/2010
"I didn't have time to read the actual study but this seems flawed to me. … Am I missing something here?"

Maybe, if you haven't read the article. Give it another lookthrough before you post.
12:40 PM on 02/12/2010
"Actual study" not article. I didn't read the 14 page study. I read the article.

Maybe you should read the post, or at least understand it before you post.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:09 AM on 02/11/2010
Big money to be made as a beltway bandit. Gov boondoggle jobs for our 'security'. I consult for one. What a waste.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:15 AM on 02/11/2010
Jerry thinks Palin's talks have subtance! Insulting his own intelligence.
12:34 AM on 02/12/2010
Anyone that thinks Palin's speech had substance much watch this video.

http://www.fight4abetterlife.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=57&start=0