The Recession's Cut Across Age, Gender & Income Groups
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-10-21/recessions-cut-across-age-gender-income-groups
The White House has been promoting its efforts to boost economic prospects for women. Diane and guests explore how the current recession has cut across age, gender and income groups and what it means for the midterm elections.
Guests
Valerie Jarrett
Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President
Gary Burtless
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies at The Brookings Institute
Michael Tanner
Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute
Heather Boushey
Senior Economist at the Center for American Progress
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I graduated from law school in May 2009 in the top half of my class. While I have worked three temporary jobs, I have yet to find permanent employment. Unfortunately, with so many lawyers losing jobs, almost every open legal job requires 2-5 years of experience. Since I cannot get the experience, I cannot get the jobs. It is a bad situation that is becoming worse. I can name well over 30 of my classmates who are in the same boat. In the meantime, I have moved back home, outside the state where I am licensed to practice, trying to save money and gain clients on my own.
My husband and I, both with college degrees in sought after professions, have been hit by the economy (with a combination of some serious missteps in remortgaging our over-inflated appraised former house.) I have been laid off, and my husband has had his wages reduced. In our family of four (two adults, two children) we have had 5-6 illnesses requiring hospitalizations and protracted after care that put us into serious debt.
We surrendered our house in a chap 7 bankruptcy, as we could not sell it. We tried working with the mortgager, but to no avail. Our real estate agent offered a bleak view of the short sale process, as many potential buyers get frustrated with the long, drawn out process. Now that house is sitting vacant, going on its 2nd winter, on sale for less than 1/2 of what our mortgage was at.
While we admittedly took out too much in equity loans (we did this before we had two children and before my job loss), a bank appraiser appraised our house at (what looks like now) a ridiculously high price. When we went to try to sell the house, when we told the realtor the mortgage he about spit out his coffee. Many people would say to us "You should have known better." You're right. But we didn't know better. We had only lived through the escalating home values, and hit the ground hard. We've paid for our mistakes: our credit rating is trashed, we no longer own a home and we have nothing to show for a house that we lived in for 7 years. However, I feel the mortgage industry and the banks share the blame. How could an appraiser come out and appraise our house for such a high $$ point...the bank told us that we had to start being late with payments before they would ever talk to us...then when we did, we got nowhere. We were told we did not qualify for a loan modification.
Live and learn , I guess. I hope the government regulators and the mortgage industry does, too.
Why is it that the many corporations operating in the US who receive special tax credits and benefits from the federal and state governments aren't creating more jobs. I see that many are making large profits as usual. Why is it our elected officials aren't asking corporations this question.
Diane noted that the report has been released close to the election, suggesting that somehow would affect the report's meaning.
In our democratic republic, elections presume that the people voting know the facts.
Even if the timing of the report was influenced by the timing, facts are facts and we the people need to know what they are to cast informed votes.
@ Cat
Corporations exist to make and maximize profits for their shareholders. And they have created and sold many fine and important products and services; they have done much of value.
But they cannot be expected to take risks for the good of all the people of the US when those risks might hurt a limited group - their shareholders.
Which is why we have to be very careful to not let corporate views and voices dominate the political process.
Corporations exist to make money.
Our government exists "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."
http://constitutionus.com/
In Other Words: there is no 'Inc' in "We the people of the United States."
I was recently laid off from an job of 15 years. Nobody is willing to give causes of why specific individuals, but my own research has indicated that it may have been caused by my high pay in relation to the current market for the position. I have a great deal of experience in my industry, yet I discovered that my position was replaced by an inexperienced low-cost consultant. Where does this mentality come from where cost overruns experience? Which ultimately sacrifices the quality of work performed.
To place this into context, I'm a 40 year old, technical worker who is very acquainted with current technology.
Diane,
Thank you so much for mentioning the issue of single women, who do not have a spouse/partner to fall back on if unemployment strikes. There is so much emphasis on the plight of families, and while I don't mean to make light of a family that has one or both partners unemployed, it is a different thing entirely when you are single and there is no back up. Married people have the option of electing COBRA for the continuation of health coverage (assuming they can afford it) and taking advantage of any benefits that may be available through the spouses employer. Single people don't have these advantages. Since there are now more single households than married ones in the US (and I am single), I am especially interested in this issue. One thing that the president could have done for single people (as well as married people) was to put the full support of the federal government behind the public option for health insurance. This would have given single people (as well as families) the opportunity to have health coverage even in a bad economy.
To Michael Tanner's comment on why businesses aren't spending: what evidence is there that the primary reason businesses aren't spending is their concern that future taxes will be higher because of today's debt? Is that pure speculation? If that were true why wouldn't that have been a problem throughout the Bush administration when debt skyrocketed with tax cuts, 2 wars and the unpaid-for new prescription drug benefit?
Corporations should be worried. But not because they don't hold enough cash reserve, but because they are putting profits ahead of patriotism and there is going to be a big backlash from the rest of us. I don't support corporations who put greed ahead of patriotism, neither do many others. Business X, you don't hire, and sit on profits? I don't buy and your bottom line is loose your customers. Good luck to your greed!
PS DR where do you find these people that never once can talk about corporate responsibility? Day in and day out corporations are never called to account and challenged to do what's right in these tough times.
With reference to business owners' comments about the continued lack of consumers buying their products, thus allowing them to grow again and hire workers: My grandparents and parents tried to teach me to work hard and save my money, to spend the money I made on sensible purchases - on things I need and a few things I and my family want in addition to our needs. For a long time Americans have been on spending sprees, buying the "latest and greatest toys" if you will. We as Americans are simply now trying to practice more sound economic principles, modesty in purchasing to help us now and when we retire. Question: Why do business owners not realize that this is going to be the trend, and that most Americans have been encouraged to do this by financial advisors for years. We wish in fact that our Federal government would practice this same new-found restraint.
My husband lost his IT job three times between 1998 to 2001. It was more profitable for the 'private sector' to outsource IT jobs then to hire US workers. I worked in the public sector making 2/3 less then my husband. After going through our retirement savings and searching for an affordable apartment in a safe neighborhood in the Northeast, we almost lost our home. Our options were very limited as we needed to remain in a high rent area in order for me to keep my job yet we could barely afford our mortgage, utilities, car insurance and food. We had two children in college who took out student loans to pay their tuition and one of them took time off from college to support herself. My husband now is the IT head of a public sector agency and five years later we are financially stable. However, we have no retirement savings and my husband plans to work for many more years.
My husband worked for a large investment bank that survived only because of TARP funding. Despite their financial mistakes and need for bail-out money to survive, they paid their top executive huge salaries and bonuses. They have no loyalty to their rank and file and they behave as it their only loyalty is to their top earners.
I find it disgusting that the CATO Institute representative is blaming the federal government for job losses and for private sector's failure to begin hiring again. The private corporate sector's top executive made MILLIONS AND BILLIONS from income tax breaks and tax incentives to off source jobs. Income inequality has worsened dramatically over the last ten years and they aren't sharing their wealth with job creation.
Our economy is being held hostage by the oil & gas industries, the health insurance industry, and the financial sector. The gas and oil industry lobbied hard in the 1970's and 1980s' to put a clamp on alternative energies and the technology was picked up by the Germans and the Chinese. We lost out on creating new jobs because the oil and gas industry didn't want competition. We just need to look at the people who are in the top .01% to see who is blocking job creation not the federal government.
It is a fact that corporations (foreign and domestic) receive special tax benefits on both the state and federal level. This is called welfare, when given to an individual.
What percentage of income from corporations is paid in taxes, compared to the average tax payer who is a person. My percentage has been steadily 38% of my income. I have been supporting the welfare offered to corporations, through the state and federal taxes I pay. I am smack in the middle class and not unlike many of my friends.
How many jobs are created by these corporations who are not creating jobs, but are receiving government benefits?
Diane, you did not really address the caller's comments about older workers and the lower level of knowledge of computers among some of them.
A low level of computer knowledge limits opportunities for everyone, especially older workers. I wish your guests had addressed that issue.
BTW, I am a 57-year-old woman with better computer knowledge than most. I do see that younger workers automatically assume that my computer savviness is lacking, but that attitude changes quickly once we start working on the computer together.
Thanks,
Ellen
Hi Diane: Like Penny, I was grateful that you brought up the topic of singles in the recession, and disappointed when the gentleman who responded couldn't bother to answer the question. He went on and on about supports for public sector jobs and how most of those jobs employ women, but said NOTHING about single people. Another point about health insurance for the single person out of work is that Medicaid is not a possibility. Most states (48, I believe), do not allow single adults to get coverage through Medicaid, so we would be left with COBRA (as Penny said, IF we can afford it), or going to the emergency room when sick. When my brother was laid off a couple years ago, he, his spouse and their two children were able to join the state Medicaid program and get all needed care. When I was laid off, my doctor recommended a low-cost insurance program offered by our county hospital, but the program's funding was cut off only a few weeks later.
I am currently employed and have health insurance, thank goodness, but I'm 53 years old and wonder every day how long this job will last, and whether I'll ever be able to get another with benefits and a livable wage if I'm laid off again.
It is obvious that the economic problems we are facing is due to, in large part, the 50 million abortions that have depleted the younger work force over the last 47 years. Unless we provide tax incentives for people to have children and provide support networks for women to bring to term and raise their children, the problems of the older population will only get worse. China's mandated oppressive one child policy is one extreme example of the devastating consequences to an economy and a culture when the child is devalued.
Ms.Rehm,
I love your program and listen everyday! That being said, I cringed when I overheard you include hispanics as a race, during your conversation with one of your guests regarding unemployment. That is incorrect. As an American of hispanic heritage, I must point out that hispanics are not a race. It is a cultural identity. Hispanics can be white, black, asian, indian and anything in between. As such, they belong to all of the socio-economic groups and have been affected by the economic recession in various ways, as have most Americans. Furthermore, even though it seems to have become in-vogue to refer to hispanics as "latino", the word is being used incorrectly. Latino, is merely, the spanish word for Latin. Not all latin people are hispanic. For example, if you are Italian, French, Brazilian, Portugese or Romanian, you are latin, but not necessarily hispanic. Hispanics are not all the same, do not have one monolithic thought process, and some are Independent, Republican, Democrat, and everything else. And finally, most of the conversations in today's political/economic climate refer primarily to people from Mexico or Central America. Mexican's and Central Americans are not the same, just as hispanics from Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and many other South American countries are different. And all, have even less in common with hispanics from Cuba, Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic, all of which have very distinct, caribbean based and influenced hispanic cultures, etc. The point is that "hispanic" covers a very broad group of mostly, spanish speaking peoples. And even within their spoken spanish, there are very distinct and glaring differences.
Thanks!
With all due respect to this young author, he appears to be making a lot of assumptions. There are factions within the government that appear to be making preparations for events other than an aging population.
I would like to call everyone's attention to the fact that discrimination on the basis of age is every bit as illegal as is discrimination on the basis of race. Also, it drives me crazy when I hear that older workers are likely to be less able to work with computers, the internet, and such technology. I studied on a mainframe back in the mid-70s and then bought my first computer in 1980. I have updated my equipment and software both personally and in the jobs I have had ever since. I know how to take a PC apart and install new hardware components in addition to working with just about every spreadsheet, word processing software, graphics, photo processing, etc. So, I sincerely doubt that any 20- or 30-something know as much or can do as much with computers as I can, on both PCs and Macs. I also helped to get a whole country onto the internet (the Philippines) while I was posted there as a Foreign Service Officer. I do not ever intend to retire. Also, I believe in the prognostications of Ray Kurzweil about the advances in medicine and medical technology that are going to be able to keep us alive, essentially as long as we want to live. So, I'm looking for my next career, one that will be useful and relevant at least into my low 100s. Finally, if anyone intimates in any way that they are not interested in having me work with them because of my age, I may well take legal action on the fact that they are breaking the law in discriminating against me because of my age.
WOW, talk about not seeing the elephant in the room and having one's head in the sand. Maybe you should have a Population Ecologist on the show. The next 150 years in the history of humankind isn't going to be pretty. All monocultures eventually collapse, you're witnessing it now. And, it's not like we aren't in the midst of the sixth great known extinction or nothing. ..... The blind leading the blind. ~1 billion peeps on the planet in 1900, ~7 billion today--go figure. Sheesh. Oh that's right, it's sustainable.
"Older" people who have worked in offices for the past thirty years are or should be computer virtuosos. Computers have been part of the office scene since the early 80's. Employers replace computers frequently for their staff. Every new computer requires updated software which is easy to learn once you have mastered the original version. I take exception to the notion that just because you are 55 or over, you get all confused over new technology or worse, that you depend on younger colleagues to help yo. I taught myself web development (CSS and HTML) and am now mastering web pages built through content management systems. I have always done well with computers. My skill has not helped me get hired or promoted. Interviewers find other reasons to dismiss what I have to offer.