Since there is no agreement regarding "the Fiscal Cliff", I received a letter saying my unemployment runs out this month.
Other than Paul Krugman's columns, I rarely see any serious discussion of the long-term unemployed. Now this government letter comes today, and while it was not a surprise, it just seems incomprehensible that this is happening to me and to so many others.
I created a thread about 6 months ago about being unemployed and all this time later I am still unable to find work work in NYC in financial services, and I happily take a much-lower paying job than my previous $150,000 per year salary but I cannot even seem to get an interview.
When I sometimes do get a call, said "The company thinks if they hire you they figure you will leave for a higher paying job at the first possible chance." (As if they exist.)
I had savings which have kept me going but other than emptying my 401K, which I am loathe to do at the age of 48, have been applying everywhere never thought I would be in this position. I go to the gym to keep a positive attitude but the weather this past weekend coupled with the letter is not helping.
So is this happening to anyone else here?
[quote]"The company thinks if they hire you they figure you will leave for a higher paying job at the first possible chance."
You are being told to temp.
Did you vote for Obama? If not, I don't care about your problems.
What part of "not enough jobs, too many people" didn't you get? You're only smart move is to start a business of some kind.
I hear North Dakota has jobs. Nebraska, too.
I'm sorry, OP. You're definitely not alone:
"About 2.1 million people will stop receiving jobless benefits immediately if Congress doesn't reauthorize federal unemployment insurance programs by year's end. Another 1 million will lose benefits over the first three months of 2013."
Well, *someone* has to pay for those millionaire tax cuts!
I got the same letter last week op. I scored two job interviews this year, one within the field I am in and the second at a store. Waiting for my second interview with the store.
Good luck r7.
Potential name for a drag king?
OP, I feel your pain. I was out of work for almost 2 years. I took FLMA time off to care for my terminally ill mother and then injured my back when I was cleaning out her apartment after she died. Between the time off to care for my mother and for my back injury I exhausted FLMA benefits (all unpaid) and was let go by my employer when I had a couple more weeks of physical therapy left to do. I was denied unemployment even after an appeal.
I'm a few years older than you and I ended up wiping out my retirement account just trying to stay afloat. Last Christmas I got a retail holiday job and was kept on after Christmas. I was making $8 an hour and working at most 20 hours a week (just so I couldn't qualify for benefits).
I sent out tons of resumes, got a fair amount of interviews, but always felt like the people interviewing me didn't even want to be dealing with somebody my age. I think a lot of employers expected somebody younger since my most recent work has been in web and social media work.
I got a job in March, stayed on at the retail gig for the summer, eded up landing a freelance gig that pays nicely for the work. I just got a 10% raise at work last week. Things are slowly improving even though I'm bringing in about 10k less than I was making 4 years ago and 30K less than I was 8 years ago.
I was down to my last $45 when I got the job.
Hang in there. Don't give up.
These stories are so sobering and, yes, frightening. And these are the people Mitt Romney considered lazy bums and leeches.
I wish all of you the best in finding decent work and holding onto it.
What's frightening is the sense of entitlement among the "dead weight" in this economy, as if someone who USED TO makek six figures still trumps those who are presently employed in a "shit" job the former used to thumb their nose at. I guess that $11 an hour I keep making isn't so bad, especially when I live below my means. Then people with five times my income and ten times my overhead crash, and they're the ones in the welfare lines.
How can an economy survive when those who contribute nothing other than expenses (the aged, unemployed) draw pension and unemployment checks which exceed the actual PAYCHECKS of new college graduates?
Selfish, entitled baby-boomers have looted this country every step of their lives, and now they want the young to throw themselves overboard so they can have money they were "promised" to them, even as they ignore the promises to pay back the debt they simultaneously borrowed are broken.
It's just a matter of time before the young assert themselves by making themselves the top economic priority. You can't have a society where a college graduate with a science degree is earning $10 an hour, while some laid-off auto worker who will never find another job is collecting $450 a week in unemployment, prior to the $600 a week pension he'll be getting. We just can't afford it.
The elderly who complain that they can't have their SS benefits cut are the same ones who elected the politicians who looted the SS fund to run up their debts.
There's a small movement among the young called "the can kicks back." At some point they're going to trade all those retirement benefits for three-hots-and-a-cot and little else, which is as it should be.
Young people are the ones getting screwed here, becuse many didn't even enter the job market until after the crisis. While some older folks wound up displaced, many more are doing just fine becuase they had a job onto which they could cling for dear life, and have for several years.
Yes, R12, the social contract means nothing. And the 98% that made it so you could actually earn a degree don't deserve anything. The middle class is being squashed by oligarchs and their tools in Washington, and all you seem to care about is yourself. Frankly, that's the attitude that got us into this mess. Do you not see the irony of your argument?
[quote]How can an economy survive when those who contribute nothing other than expenses (the aged, unemployed) draw pension and unemployment checks which exceed the actual PAYCHECKS of new college graduates?
Okay, seriously? The government doesn't fund most unemployment benefits - companies do, out of their own pockets. Ditto Social Security. The fact that the government has failed to adjust SS to be in tune with real-life actuarial tables, resulting in the elderly often receiving far more in benefits than they paid in (particularly if they live beyond 80), is its own damn fault.
[quote]You can't have a society where a college graduate with a science degree is earning $10 an hour, while some laid-off auto worker who will never find another job is collecting $450 a week in unemployment, prior to the $600 a week pension he'll be getting.
Oh lord, what's next? The specter of the Cadillac-driving welfare queen? Do you really believe *every* right-wing blog? Unemployment insurance maxes out at about $300 a week. NO ONE recently laid off from a blue-collar automaker job is getting ANY pension benefits, and even senior executives with 30 years' of pre-retirement work experience barely get the kind of $600-a-week figure you're talking about. (My grandfather is one of them, incidentally, a retired former Ford executive.)
I don't know if you intended to sound like a heartless Republican fuck and Ayn Rand sympathizer, thinking that everyone (including the elderly and sick) should just take care of their own fucking selves, but that's certainly the end result.
blah blah blah. Nobody on social security is the problem. It is only the rich. You are engaged in typical freeper misdirection.
The economy is better when ordinary people have a little income, and fyi the assault on young people started in 1981 when Reagan was president. From 1981-1989 the per capita income of people 18-24 dropped by more than a quarter while the income of seniors skyrocketed.
So...where should we move to?
The liberals like R13, R14, R15, etc. always have the same refrain: they want "social justice," and tug at our heartstrings, while pretending that debt just doesn't exist, or is not relevant.
Anyone who thinks the pensiosn I speak of don't exist should file an FOIA request with almost any goverment, to see what the retired workers are earning. Those NOT laid off, including those who retired before the criss, are draining wealth from the system. Sure, they need their retirement benefits, but who signed on to having these folks collect guaranteed income while those who build our future can't even find decent jobs?
The typical civil-service pension is absurd. You have people collecting a lot more than $600 a week. Unemployment does go up to $4450 a week in many states as well. Regardless of the cause, when you send most of your money to people who don't contribute to infrastructure, or the future, it's an absolute recipe for disaster.
Insults like "freeper" don't change a thing.
You want food stamps for the poor? Fine.
Universal healthcare? Fine
Inflated civil-service pensions? Fine
99 weeks of unemployment benefits? Fine
Now explain how we pay for this.
Tax the rich? Okay tax them at 100 percent. That raises $70 billion. Now where do you get the other $1.5 trillion in cuts?
$4 trillion in cuts over ten years? That's $400 billion a year, and $12 trillion in additional debt.
It won't matter if we default on our bonds or have to print another $20 trillion, will it?
Just keep tugging at those heartstrings about social justice, as if the piper must never be paid.
OP, while I haven't been unemployed for quite as long as you have, I certainly have been for a while, so I can sympathize. That said, I'm really surprised you haven't figured out yet that simply mailing in a resume is the LEAST effective way to get a job, period. I know it's difficult to do when you're probably depressed from being unemployed for so long, but the ONLY way to get out of your rut (barring an immediate miraculous economic recovery) is to be both proactive and aggressive in your job hunt. I've been laid off twice now in economic downturns and fired once as well, and each time I had a new job within two months. Here's how:
1. Avoid HR like the plague. Do NOT just e-mail your resume expecting it will go anywhere. Any decent job these days will get literally hundreds, if not thousands, of resumes. (Btw I speak from firsthand experience, having posted job listings during economic downturns when I *was* employed.) Larger companies literally don't even get 85% of the resumes sent it; they're scanned by computer and automatically thrown out if they don't contain enough "keywords" that a given company is looking for. There's also no realistic way to figure out *which* keywords they're looking for.
2. Instead of going through HR, send an e-mail DIRECTLY to the hiring manager for this particular role. Yes, I realize this can be a challenge at larger companies. Still, it's possible to figure out. You can search LinkedIn for the names and contact info for people with a given title at a given company in a given city. That's EXACTLY how I got my current job: after getting no response from HR, I did some research, figured out the name of the VP in charge of the department where I wanted to work, then figured out the company's e-mail protocol (usually email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, or occasionally - at small companies - email@example.com) and sent the VP a thorough cover letter explaining not why I'm awesome and have great experience, but specifically why *they're* awesome (using specifics of actual work and projects they'd done) and how I could help *them* achieve their goals. It worked, even though it turned out the VP I e-mailed wasn't the hiring manager for my position; she liked my approach enough that she nicely forwarded it along to the proper person.
3. While it's less of a "stigma" than it used to be, try to come up with *something* to explain your lengthy absence from the job market. Yes, feel free to lie if it's about something they can't figure out, at least if you're good at it (lying). Do NOT lie about working for an employer that still exists or going back to college or something; those things are very easy to uncover on a background check. If you want to claim you've been "freelancing," expect to be asked to show work samples from this period -- which you can fabricate -- and/or recommendations. Personally, I did this and asked my best friend since eighth grade, who happens to now be an executive VP at one of the top startup tech companies in the country, to vouch for me (as I did for him once over a decade ago, before he made it big).
4. You'll have to go into debt to do it, but you might consider going back to school for a professional degree (law or business in particular). You shouldn't have a problem securing federal loans to pay for 100% of the cost, including living expenses, since you still have savings and whatnot. My mom went back to law school after she and my dad split up, and graduated at the age of 47. While she admittedly was a top-10% student at a top-20 law school, her age did not hinder her from getting a very high paying job immediately upon graduation; today she's managing partner of a specialized, niche law firm she co-founded (specialized enough that I don't want to name it, but I will say she bills at $600/hr).
[quote] Unemployment does go up to $4450 a week in many states as well.
5. Finally, what might be the toughest idea to consider: moving. I have no idea how many unemployed financial-services people there are in NYC, but I'm guessing it's a shitload, and I know many of the bigger banks like Bank of America are still struggling even though the economy is improving and the stock markets have *seriously* rebounded. You live in what is by far the most expensive city in the country, living cost-wise. Not only are your job prospects vastly better in a city with far fewer economic problems, your savings will last much longer there. I'd say arguably the most ripe big-city job market right now is Houston, which wasn't hit particularly hard by the economic downturn and has a largely recession-proof economy thanks to energy and health care, two of the largest employers in the area. Yes, I realize you don't work in either area, but well-off people need financial services in their immediate locality, too.
R17, I don't disagree in the slightest that our federal debt level is fucking absurd, and that something needs to be done about it. The problem is that you're blaming the wrong parties.
[quote]Those NOT laid off, including those who retired before the criss, are draining wealth from the system.
Please explain further. By "wealth" do you mean Social Security benefits? You understand that everyone in the country is REQUIRED to pay over 15% of their income DIRECTLY into funds for Social Security and Medicare, right? And that we've guaranteed everyone who's paid these taxes that they will GET income as a result when they retire?
[quote]Sure, they need their retirement benefits, but who signed on to having these folks collect guaranteed income while those who build our future can't even find decent jobs?
Again, you're conflating two completely different issues. Social Security and Medicare have absolutely nothing to do with unemployment levels among the young. The BIGGEST obstacle recent college grads are encountering, actually -- aside from the obvious general economic malaise -- is the fact that Baby Boomers, who comprise a substantially outsized percentage of the current 50- to 65-year-old American age pool, are delaying their retirements because they haven't saved up enough yet for it (in part due to layoffs, but also due to much more complicated reasons like their failure to save enough and spending too much on revolving credit card payments and similar bullshit). The trickle-down effect means far fewer jobs at the end of the line for 22- to 25-year-olds with no substantial job history.
[quote]The typical civil-service pension is absurd. You have people collecting a lot more than $600 a week. Unemployment does go up to $4450 a week in many states as well.
Link, please. I don't buy those figures at all, but regardless, the overwhelming number of people with civil-service pensions get them from municipalities and their states, not the federal government.
[quote]Now where do you get the other $1.5 trillion in cuts?
You're fallaciously assuming cuts are the only answer in addition to raising taxes on the wealthy. How about ending the war in Afghanistan, cutting defense spending on redundant and outdated weapons systems designed for the Cold War instead of the modern world, eliminating corporate welfare for massively profitable companies like ExxonMobil (which gets $5 billion a year in federal subsidies) and Monsanto (among hundreds of others), chopping pork-barrel spending in Congress (something people on both sides of the aisle are shamelessly guilty of), and allowing the reforms in Obama's health-care bill designed to substantially *cut* health-care costs take effect, for starters?
[quote]It won't matter if we default on our bonds or have to print another $20 trillion, will it?
Of course it matters. You're just blaming the wrong parties for the causes of our insane debt.