A week ago, I found myself surrounded by a room full of strangers listening to confident young man expound on the dos and don'ts of resume writing and acing a job interview. Ok, so "found myself" isn't exactly accurate. In truth, I was required to be there by the Department of Labor, as were my classmates who, like me, had all been collecting unemployment for at least six months, most of us more.
We were a diverse group, united by the fact of being out of work for longer than the higher-ups at the DOL believe we should be. A little guidance was what we needed, our Job Search Follow-Up summonses explained, in the form of a mandatory hour-long workshop on the myriad ways in which the Department of Labor is here to help -- preceded by 60 minutes of waiting in an unstaffed windowless room wondering if anyone actually knew we were there. If we failed to attend, the letters said, we would risk losing our weekly unemployment benefits. The room was full.
The workshop was led by a deep-voiced 30-something man in a standard-issue jacket and tie. I had to give the guy credit. Day in and day out he stands before countless representatives of the disgruntled formerly-employed and manages to maintain both professionalism and a sense of humor while doing so. Ironically, as jobs go, telling people how to get one -- especially people who didn't ask in the first place -- is probably not high on anyone's list. Among our instructor's words of wisdom was a warning: "Showing up for an interview 15 minutes early is appropriate -- showing up an hour early is desperate," and an existential question to ponder: "People put on masks every day -- to the employer, are you the true you or are you the interview you?"
My classmates and I listened dutifully to our leader, hopeful that if we just sat quietly and let him do his thing, we could be out of there in less than the proscribed hour. But he wanted class participation, and so, ever covetous of our weekly $405 checks, we participated.
From their replies to questions about the average length of a job interview and the proper timing of a thank you note, I learned a few things about my classmates. My neighbor to the right was a former professor of Russian history so concerned with following the letter of the law that he didn't file his claim during the week he spent interviewing at a University in Florida because he wouldn't be able to answer truthfully that we was "ready and able to work" in New York. On my left was a former Human Resources manager with whom the instructor frequently checked his facts, in front of her a client services type copiously taking notes, and behind me a media Jill-of-all-trades not unlike myself, a writer and editor whose position was "eliminated" in a company reorganization after I loyally and enthusiastically put in over a decade at what I had once considered my dream job.
In the 19 months since I was laid off (19 and a half, but who's counting?), I've experienced many "firsts": first time filing for unemployment, first time going into double-digit credit card debt, first time dipping into my rolled-over 401K. Withdrawing from my retirement savings more than two decades before I was technically eligible was something it never occurred to me I might do, let alone do again and again. In the past year alone, overdrawn checking accounts have forced me to tap those once-taboo funds three times, diminishing my meager nest egg nearly by half. Last year's monetary gifts from relatives earmarked for my kids' college accounts went instead to bills and rent.
On a more positive note, being "downsized" has meant not being a full-time working parent for the first time since I became a mother. This too has led to a number of unexpected firsts: first time picking up my kids at dismissal time rather than from after-school (I actually had to ask someone where in the building I would find them at 3), first time accompanying them on a field trip without nagging guilt about skipping out on work, first time staying home with a sick child without furtively checking my email while playing Connect Four.
I'm 40-years-old and for the first time in my adult life I honestly have no idea what the future holds in the way of a career or overall financial security. Still, I know I'm among the lucky ones. Just as my severance was ending a year ago, my husband -- who had been laid off from his own publishing job two years earlier -- miraculously landed a long-term freelance assignment and is now slated to become staff. Rather than how we'll pay the rent or make our car payments, our worries are now of the slightly less dire "How will we pay for summer camp, let alone college?" and "Will we ever get out of debt?" variety. We are resigned to having no washer-dryer, dishwasher or second bathroom for the foreseeable future. Having lost faith in the concepts of job security and financial stability, it's the unforeseeable future we worry about now.
While continuing to plug away at freelance work, peruse the industry job sites and pound the pavement for interviews, I've gone back to school for yet another degree. This time I'm studying to be a teacher, one of the most underrated jobs one can have in this country, but also among the most rewarding. I have no illusions that I'll ever be able to kick up my heels and relax into retirement. But if I have to be working for a paycheck into my old age, at least as a teacher I'll be doing something positive for the world, rather than promoting products I no longer believe in that this planet doesn't need.
Of course, no one's hiring teachers around here right now either. But a girl's gotta have a dream.
Follow Deborah Levine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/debann2000
They figured out how! Cheap energy! Can't have an industrial revolution without it! Most think it is cheap labor! There has always been cheap labor but the industrial revolution had to wait for the invention of the steam engine to produce cheap reliable -------------- you guess it energy!
China, 2009 consumed over 45% of all the coal burnt in the world. You can make ~ 2500kwh of electricity from a ton of coal! Long term contracts for COAL run about $35.00/ton. That means for a paid for plant their cost is $0.015/kwh. Most industrial rates in the States are $0.06-$0.12/kwh.
People it's not labor cost it's energy cost! If we want to compete straight up go to dirty coal become as polluted as any Chinese city!
I think that's a dumb move!
I'd much rather do something for the planet! Apply an environmental tax or tariff on the manufacturing or transportation of products sold. Why stop at taxing carbon?
Everyone hates to pay taxes! Think of the innovated ways people will think of to avoid those taxes or tariffs! The possibilities are endless - it ranges from CLIPPER SHIPS TO MOVE PRODUCTS To COLD FUSION!
Now that would create some interesting times!
Isn't that an old Chinese curse?
That technology is the root cause is not always obvious. People point to globalization, job outsourcing, and even illegal immigration, but the truth is that those things are enabled by automation. Without high-speed internet, India wouldn't even be in the IT business. The same goes for China. The manufacturing jobs they do today are nothing like the jobs that let American blue collar workers join the middle class. Thanks to automation, Chinese manufacturing jobs are low-skill and low-pay even by Chinese standards.
And there is no such thing as a safe job because even a job that cannot be automated will come under competitive pressure from so many people trying to get it. Anyone interested in this phenomenon should read Martin Ford's "The Lights in the Tunnel," as well as the articles on robotics on marshallbrain dot com. Over the next decade, American retail will likely go 80% self-checkout. What then?
I feel like helping out but quitting my job to become a teacher or working for a non-profit will have minimal impact on society at large. The only way to help others less fortunate is to make boatloads of cash and then give it to those that are unemployed.
At least the last time she was honest. She said there was no money for retraining programs, but the unemployment office did provide a bank of computers available for internet job searches. She also said we should look into going onto welfare or food stamps. We all laughed at that. One person told her that most of us made to much in the previous year to qualify for any public assistance program. She just said "Oh".
Here is the link to the DoL http://www.bls.gov/bls/unemployment.htm.
It is important to point out that the official unemployment rate does not capture those who could work but gave up looking and those who are underemployed.
Over and over I've been told to volunteer because it will "get my foot in the door". I don't believe that. I guess there's nothing wrong with this advice, except:
1. Volunteering (ie working for free) doesn't pay rent (or for food, or student loans, or bus trips to job interviews, etc.)
2. Those who have short employment histories (eg ~35 and under) have not paid enough taxes to be entitled to government support (e.g. UI).
While I certainly agree that we need to provide benefits for those who are out of work, why do we not have a care in the world for those who actually have jobs, but whose living standards are below those of the unemployed? Why are the unemployed considered important, but the working poor and working classes not?
Where are the benefits for those making $300 (or less) a week? Where is the attention to their needs? Why do we only care about those who used to be upper middle class, but not those who've never been in the upper middle class?
Or am I not allowed to ask these questions in the new America, where we have to "tone down the rhetoric" so as not to offend the affluent class?
As a single mother who survived the Reagan years I know how to live on very limited income. However, I do not know how to live on nothing which is where things seem to be going.
There was a time when someone having over 20 years experience was an asset to a company, these days it seems to work against you.
The reason for this
(1) they will need more money. Younger people tend to be willing to work longer for less.
(2) they tend to be more set in their ways and less moldable. They want to do things their way, not the company's way. At least, that is the image they have.
(3) they are thought to have less drive, energy, and enthusiasm. A younger person is seen as more eager to please and able to work more hrs.
(4) Depending on the job, many jobs experience after a certain point doesn't help. A person may be able to get up to speed in 6 months. or maybe 1-3 yrs experience isall that is really needed and then the person is as competent as someone doing that job for 20 yrs.
(5) Sometimes something is seen as potentially wrong with the candidate if they have been laid off at that age.
(1) Its now more about working than money for many people.
(2) Again, its more about a job and a new willingness to conform and adapt.
(3) Enthusiasm is muddle in the inane process of hiring.
(4) Although this is certainly true, it doesn't make the experienced candidate less qualified.
(5) In the end we all have a scarlet letters.
Your friend should take the date off of when she got her college degree(s), too. Since most people graduate at age 22, its easy to figure out one's age using the graduation date.
Great Post though...
Now it goes on in my head over and over: Should I go back to school and train to do something else? What would that be? And if I did, at my age (61), would anyone hire me?
I never thought at this point in my life I'd still be trying to figure out what I wanted to be when I grew up.
A friend just retrained as a pharmacy technician. It only took a few months and doesn't seem like a job that's easily outsourced.
I was a hi-tech professional, consultant, manager/director, and engineer.
I am over qualified (too old) or lack a degree (too old). Many places/jobs for which I am qualified now state that they will only interview folks who are currently employed. A local business interviewed me in 2009 but I was told I was over qualified. It would have been a perfect job that would have been great for them as well as for me.
During my three years of unemployment, I applied at more than 3,000 jobs/companies around the US. I had four interviews (two over the phone). I had to move/quit my last position because of health concerns of my handicapped daughter.
The country is failing those who are unemployed and have no benefits. During other recessions unemployment was extended until the rate dropped below 7%. Such is not the case today. There are too many wealthy who 'need' the money more than those ~15%-17% of the workforce who are struggling. The tax cut extension for the wealthy could have paid for extended benefits.
However, as Gingrich and other GOP 'leaders' have stated. "It is the unemployed who are the problem" "They are lazy" and other forms of vilification to sway those who are working into believing that the unemployed are getting a 'free ride'.
The unemployed are not the reason nor the fault for the mess!
Repitition. Lots of reps.
You may starve to death in the effort, but maybe, just maybe, if you and enough people like you keep up the chant to family, friends, acquaintances, Congresspeople, etc., then the message will sink in. Maybe not. But it is our only hope. Keep it up.